Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 July, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                                2025:UHC:6473
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Writ Petition Criminal No.790 of 2025
                            23rd July, 2025

Manu and Ors                                            ............Petitioners


                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others              ...........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Kishan Singh, Advocate for respondent nos.3 to 7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the FIR No.0280 of
2025 dated 07.07.2025, under Sections 115(2), 191(2),
191(3), 333, 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S. 2023, registered
with Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, in view of
the compromise entered into between the parties.

2. A joint compounding application along with
present criminal writ petition, signed by all the
petitioners and respondent nos.3 to 7 has been filed,
which is duly supported by separate affidavits of the
parties.

3. The ground for seeking compounding of
offences is that parties have reached to the terms of
compromise 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.

4. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.

1

2025:UHC:6473

5. Petitioners and respondent nos.3 to 7 are
present before this Court duly identified by their
respective counsel.

6. This Court also interacted with the respondent
nos.3 to 7 (respondent no.3 the informant) (respondent
no.4 to 7 are the injured) about the compromise, to
which, they fairly conceded that they have 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. Further, the Apex Court has permitted
compounding of such offences in the case of Nikhil
Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.

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. Inherent 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

2
2025:UHC:6473
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. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact
that parties have reached to the terms of the
compromise, 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. Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2025) is
allowed.

12. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. The
impugned F.I.R. No.0280 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025,
under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2) and
352 of B.N.S. 2023, registered with Police Station
Ranipur, District Haridwar is hereby quashed. All
subsequent proceedings, pursuant to impugned F.I.R.,
against the petitioner also stand quashed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.07.2025
SK

3