Uttarakhand High Court
August vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 1 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6779
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 814 of 2025
01 August, 2025
Sunil Balmiki & Ors
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Ors
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Medha Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.0069 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025, under
Sections 115(2), 126, 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 351 (2) of
BNS, 2023, 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.
4. In the compounding application, it has been
1
2025:UHC:6779
stated that petitioners and respondent nos.3 & 4 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-Sunil Balmiki, petitioner no.2-
Munesh Balmiki (appeared through V.C.), petitioner
no.3-Gaurav Saxena (appeared through V.C.), petitioner
no.4-Ajit Kumar (appeared through V.C.) and respondent
no.3-Babu Lal Yadav (informant), respondent no.4-Ravi
Yadav (victim) are present in the Court, duly identified by
their respective counsel.
6. This Court interacted with the parties
specifically respondent nos.3 & 4. Respondent nos.3 & 4,
Babu Lal Yadav and Mr. Ravi Yadav stated before the
Court that they have no grievance against the petitioners
and they do 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
2
2025:UHC:6779
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.”
10. 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
invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India which is far wider than 528
BNSS, 2023.
11. 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.0069 of 2025 dated
30.06.2025, under Sections 115(2), 126, 190, 191(2),
191(3) and 351 (2) of BNS, 2023, 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.
12. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
01.08.2025
AK
3