[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
6 August vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 6 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6881
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 846 of 2025
06 August, 2025
Nikit Khatri
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Piyush Tiwari, 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,
petitioner has put to challenge the First Information
Report No.85 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025, under Section
109 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali
Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh 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.
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that the petitioners and respondent no.3 has
amicably settled their dispute with the intervention of
elder members of the community and he did not want to
1
2025:UHC:6881
proceed further against the petitioner.
5. Petitioner-Nikit Khatri and respondent no.3-
Pushkar Dutt Kapri are present in the Court, duly
identified by their respective counsel.
6. This Court interacted with the parties
specifically respondent no.3. Respondent no.3-Pushkar
Dutt Kapri stated before the Court that he has no
grievance against the petitioner 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 offence sought to
be compounded is non-compoundable.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State of
Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of 2024,
wherein, the proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.223 of
2016 were set aside, which too were registered under
Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of Yogendra Yadav
case as noted below.
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC
653, in Para 4 it has been observed as under:-
“4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this
Court can compound the offences under Sections 326
and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable.
Needless to say that offences which are non-
compoundable cannot be compounded by the court.
Courts draw the power of compounding offences from
Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be
strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) (2012)
10 SCC 303. However, in a given case, the High Court
can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power
under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact
that the parties have amicably settled their disputes
2
2025:UHC:6881
and the victim has no objection, even though the
offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the
High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the
proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of
each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude,
grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced
by quashing the proceedings because that will have
harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be
said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If
such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to
the society. However, when the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and,
therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and
where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on
account of compromise would bring about peace and
would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to
quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a
lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution
would be waste of time and energy. That will also
unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of
peace.”
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view
that ‘if Court is convinced that the offences are entirely
personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public
peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would
bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it
should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the
prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing
such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and
obstruct restoration of peace’
11. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and the principle
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Yogendra Yadav (Supra), which is reiterated in
Jaiveer Malik (Supra), this Court is of the opinion
that since the 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
3
2025:UHC:6881
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.
12. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA
No.1 of 2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise
arrived at between the parties is accepted. First
Information Report No.85 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025,
under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police
Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh, is
hereby quashed, qua, the petitioner, subject to the
condition that petitioner shall deposit Rs.20,000/-
before the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association
Advocates’ Welfare Fund within fifteen days from today
for the reason that the parties have wasted the valuable
public time of the investigating agency and further to
act as a deterrent against the petitioner so that he
would not indulge in such criminal activities in future.
Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings
pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. qua the petitioner
automatically shall come to an end.
13. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.08.2025
AK
4
[ad_2]
Source link