Uttarakhand High Court
August vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 1 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6778
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 813 of 2025
01 August, 2025
Aman Kashyap & Ors
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Ms. Medha Pande, 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.70 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025, under Sections
115(2) and 324(4) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station
Tanakpur, District Champawat on the ground of
settlement and compromise entered into between the
parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application has also been filed by the
parties, which is duly supported by separate affidavits of
the parties.
1
2025:UHC:6778
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that petitioners and respondent no.3 are living in
the same locality and due to some misunderstanding
present FIR has been lodged. It has further been stated
that parties have settled their dispute amicably with the
intervention of respectable members of both the families
and want to live happily and secured life.
5. Petitioner no.1-Aman Kashyap (appeared
through V.C.), petitioner no.2-Kunal Yadav @ Ravi Yadav,
petitioner no.3-Vikas Yadav @ Vikki, petitioner no.4-
Babulal Yadav and respondent no.3-Munesh Balmiki
(appeared through V.C.) are present in the Court, duly
identified by their respective counsel.
6. This Court interacted with the parties
specifically respondent no.3-Munesh Balmiki.
Respondent no.3-Munesh Balmiki stated before the
Court that he has no grievance against the petitioners
and he does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal
case.
7. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a
preliminary objection to the effect that one of the
offences sought to be compounded is non-
compoundable.
8. Since the parties have entered into
compromise and are living peacefully, this Court is of the
opinion that it will be a futile exercise to ask the
petitioners to face the criminal prosecution which would
ultimately result into the acquittal.
9. 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,
2
2025:UHC:6778
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.”
10. So far as the proceedings under the SC/ST Act
are concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the
consequences of a compromise in this regard in the case
of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported
in (2022) 13 SCC 635. The Court has made the following
observations in paragraphs 16 and 17, which are
reproduced hereinbelow:”
“16. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes
such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its
approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of
indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the
depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various
atrocities at the hands of upper castes. The courts have to be mindful of the
fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express
constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the
Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these
vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the
victims of caste-based atrocities.
17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in
question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or
civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on
account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal
proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can
exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when
considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a
compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying
objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the
felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is
covered under a “special statute” would not refrain this Court or the High
Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution or Section 482CrPC.”
11. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its
inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or
affect the powers of the Court. But here the Court is
3
2025:UHC:6778
invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India which is far wider than 528
BNSS, 2023.
12. In this view of the matter, compounding
application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The
compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted.
The First Information Report No.70 of 2025 dated
30.06.2025, under Sections 115(2) and 324(4) of
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
registered at Police Station Tanakpur, District
Champawat is hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant
to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end
qua the petitioners.
13. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
01.08.2025
AK
4