Uttarakhand High Court
June vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 10 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:4723
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 535 of 2025
10 June, 2025
Anil Kumar Bisht & others
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the First Information
Report No.332 of 2024 dated 12.10.2024, under
Section 384 IPC, registered with Police Station
Kankhal, District Haridwar.
2. 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.
3. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that with the interference of elderly members of
the society both the parties have agreed to resolve the
dispute. Now, the misunderstanding between the
1
2025:UHC:4723
petitioners and respondent no.4 has been resolved and
petitioner no.4 does not want to prosecute the
petitioners.
4. Petitioner no.1-Anil Kumar Bisht, petitioner
no.2-Neelam Bisht, petitioner no.3-Sunil Kumar and
respondent no.4-Abhishek Jain are present in the
Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.
5. This Court interacted with the parties
specifically respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 stated
before the Court that he has no grievance against the
petitioners; want to live peacefully and he does not
want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.
6. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a
preliminary objection to the effect that the offence
sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.
7. 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.
8. 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.”
9. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its
2
2025:UHC:4723
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.
10. In this view of the matter, compounding
application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The
compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted.
First Information Report No.332 of 2024 dated
12.10.2024, under Section 384 IPC, registered with
Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar are hereby
quashed, subject to the condition that each petitioner
shall deposit Rs.5,000/- before the Uttarakhand High
Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund within
fifteen days from today. Consequently, all the
subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR
automatically shall come to an end.
11. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
off accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
10.06.2025
AK
3