Uttarakhand High Court
25 June vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 25 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5375
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 660 of 2025
25 June, 2025
Babar And Ors. --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for petitioners.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State
of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Sajjad Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the First Information
Report No.160 of 2025 dated 16.04.2025, under Sections
115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, registered
with Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, in view of
the compromise entered into between the parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) is filed, which
is signed and duly supported by separate affidavits by
petitioners and respondent No.3.
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that the parties have reached to the
terms of compromise with the intervention of family
members of both the parties, wherefor a settlement has
also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the
present first information report be quashed in terms of
the compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
1
2025:UHC:5375
6. Petitioners-Babar, Faragat @ Farasat, Waqqar,
Khalid, Kasim and respondent No.3-Jubair are present
before this Court, duly identified by their respective
counsel. On interaction, respondent No.3 stated that he
and petitioners are neighbours and due to some
misunderstanding, the dispute arose between them and
now, with the intervention of family members of both the
parties, they have settled their dispute on the terms that
both parties live happily and secured life and kept away
criminal fetus exercise, therefore, he doesn’t want to
prosecute the above case against the petitioners in view
of the amicable settlement arrived between them. He
fairly conceded that he has no objection if compounding
application is allowed.
7. So far as compounding of non-compoundable
offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the
consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case
of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and
another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held as
below: –
“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes
necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”
8. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its
extraordinary power can quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not
limit or affect the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
9. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the
attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri)
160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the
power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent2
2025:UHC:5375
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in
accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and
victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case and no category can be prescribed. ………………… In this category of cases, High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full
and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High
Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the
victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”
10. Since the parties have reached to the terms of
the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that
there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of
conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that
it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since
the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this
Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to
compound the matter.
11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/
2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No.160 of 2025 dated 16.04.2025, under Sections
115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, registered
with Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, is hereby
quashed. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings
pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come
to an end.
12. In view of the above, the present criminal writ
petition is allowed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
25.06.2025
PN
PREET Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38
331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
I NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81F
AE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC
, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.06.25 16:27:38 +05’30’
3