Uttarakhand High Court
Nipendra Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 18 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7222
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
18 August, 2025
Writ Petition Criminal No.667 of 2025
Nipendra Kumar --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. -Respondents
With
Writ Petition Criminal No.699 of 2025
Mahendra Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shivam Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Ms.
Medha Pande, learned counsel for petitioner-Nipendra
Kumar.
Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner-
Mahendra Singh.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mohit Kumar Kashyap and Mr. Anuj Sngh Kunjwal,
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, in both the criminal writ petitions, have put
to challenge the First Information Report No.0157 of
2025 dated 01.05.2025, under Sections 316(2), 316(5),
318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023,
registered with Police Station Jaspur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, in view of the compromise entered into
between the parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, joint
compounding applications (IA Nos.1 of 2025) are filed,
which are signed and duly supported by separate
affidavits by petitioners and respondent No.3
(complainant).
1
2025:UHC:7222
4. In the compounding applications, it has been
stated by the parties that the matter has amicably been
settled between them wherefor a compromise was took
place between the parties. It is thus, prayed that the
present first information report be quashed in terms of
the compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
Nipendra Kumar submits that the amount under
dispute has been returned to the respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for petitioner-Mahendra Singh submits
that the alleged offences leveled against the petitioner-
Mahendra Singh have not been committed by him; he
has never cheated the respondent No.3 in any manner;
he has falsely been implicated in the present matter as
he is father of the co-accused -Rajeev Kumar.
6. Petitioners-Nipendra Kumar, Mahendra Singh
and respondent No.3-Avnish Kumar are present before
this Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.
On interaction, respondent No.3 stated that the dispute
is now amicably settled between them, therefore, he does
not want to prosecute the above case against the
petitioners in view of the amicable settlement arrived at
between them. He fairly conceded that he has no
objection, if compounding application is allowed.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that there are
no criminal antecedents against the petitioners, however,
he raised a preliminary objection to the effect that some
of the offences sought to be compounded are non-
compoundable.
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
2
2025:UHC:7222
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
extraordinary power can quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not
limit or affect the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
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 be 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 these cases. 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 these cases fit to permit
the parties to compound the matter.
3
2025:UHC:7222
12. Accordingly, compounding applications (IA
Nos.1 of 2025) are hereby allowed. The compromise
arrived at between the parties is accepted. The First
Information Report No.0157 of 2025 dated 01.05.2025,
under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
and 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, registered with Police
Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby
quashed qua the petitioners-Nipendra Kumar and
Mahendra Singh. Consequently, all the subsequent
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically
shall come to an end qua the above petitioners.
13. However, it is made clear that the above FIR
stands quashed qua the petitioner-Nipendra Kumar,
subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand only), in the Uttarakhand High Court Bar
Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund, simply for the
reason of wasting public time of investigating agency and
to act as deterrent against the petitioner in future for
venturing such a dare devil act/offence.
14. Accordingly, these criminal writ petitions are
allowed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.08.2025
PN
PREETI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadb
e38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE8
1FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D9
59AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.08.18 16:21:35 +05’30’
4