Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Imran’ For The Offence Punishable Under on 30 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5545
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
30.06.2025 C-528 No. 976 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Subhash Joshi, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Vikash Uniyal along with Mr. Prabhat
Kandpal, learned Brief Holders for the State.
3. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 3 & 4.
4. Present petition is filed under Section 528
B.N.S.S. to quash the impugned charge-sheet,
impugned cognizance order dated 26.08.2017
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.
2236 of 2017 (F.I.R. No.216 of 2017) ‘State Vs.
Imran’ for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 354, 504 & 506 I.P.C. as well as
the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid
case on the basis of the compromise arrived at
between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the parties would
submit that both parties have settled their
dispute amicably. Respondent nos.2 & 3 no
longer wishes to pursue the case. A joint
compounding application (IA/1/2025), along
with individual affidavits, has been filed to
support this.
6. The applicant and respondent nos.2 & 3
appeared before the Court in person duly
identified by their respective counsel.
7. Learned counsel for the parties would
2025:UHC:5545
submit that applicant and respondent nos.2 &
3 are neighbours and due to a
misunderstanding, the F.I.R. has been lodged
by them against each other, the dispute has
now been resolved outside the Court.
Therefore, the criminal proceedings be quashed
on the basis of the amicable settlement
between the parties.
8. Learned State Counsel opposed the
compounding application on the ground that
alleged Sections 323, 504, and 506 of I.P.C. are
compoundable offenses. However, Section 354
IPC is non-compoundable offence.
9. The Court observed that since the matter
has been settled, the possibility of conviction is
remote. Continuing the proceedings would be
unfair and not serve the ends of justice.
10. 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 that FIRs can be quashed to secure
justice, even for non-compoundable offences.
In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
[(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160], the Hon’ble Supreme
Court also held that High Courts have broader
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
proceedings, even if offences are not
compoundable.
11. In view of the above, compounding
2025:UHC:5545
application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The
compromise arrived at between the parties is
accepted. The cognizance order dated
26.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case
No. 2236 of 2017 (F.I.R. No. 216 of 2017) ‘State
Vs. Imran’ for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 354, 504 & 506 I.P.C. is hereby
quashed. Consequently, the C-528 petition is
allowed.
12. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
30.06.2025
Mamta
2025:UHC:5545