Uttarakhand High Court
Faeem Alias Munnu And Ors. … vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2276
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 255 of 2025
Faeem Alias Munnu And Ors. --Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for petitioners.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned D.A.G. with Ms. Sweta Dobhal,
learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Basant Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6.
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 FIR No.48 of 2025
dated 13.03.2025, under Sections 115(2) and 191(2) of
BNS 2023, registered with Police Station Dineshpur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, in view of the compromise
entered into between the parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) is filed and
signed duly supported by separate affidavits by
petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6.
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that the incident took place due to
misunderstanding and now, both the parties have
reached to the terms of amicable settlement after
intervention of elderly persons from both the sides. It is
thus, prayed that the present first information report be
quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between
the parties.
5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
1
2025:UHC:2276
6. Petitioners-Faeem @ Munnu, Abdul Jaleel,
Ubesh, Moh. Juber, Naved, Aabid, Murad Ali, Sajim Ali,
respondent No.4 (complainant)-Jagpal Gupta, respondent
No.5-Barmanand and respondent no.6-Smt. Rajeshwari
are present before this Court, being duly identified by
their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent
Nos.4 to 6 stated they do not want to prosecute the above
case against the petitioners in view of the amicable
settlement arrived between them. He 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. 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 under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
9. Further, the Apex Court has permitted
compounding of such offences in the case of Nikhil
Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.
10. 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 be2
2025:UHC:2276
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 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.”
11. Since the parties have reached to the terms of
the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that
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.
12. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived
at between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No.48 of 2025 dated 13.03.2025, under Sections
115(2) and 191(2) of BNS 2023, registered with Police
Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is
hereby quashed. Consequently, all the subsequent
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically
shall come to an end.
13. Present criminal writ petition stands disposed
of accordingly.
14. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
27.03.2025
PN
3
[ad_1]
Source link