Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 7 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6943
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.469 of 2023
07th August, 2025
Shiv Charan Prajapati and others .............Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ...........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ankurit David,
Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State.
Mr. Kishore Rai, Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The present C482 application has been filed by the
applicants for quashing the charge sheet dated 07.07.2017
and summoning order dated 19.11.2018, passed by court of
learned Judicial Magistrate/IInd Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar along with proceedings of
Criminal Case No.9910 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand Vs.
Asha Devi and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
504, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Transit
Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. A joint compounding application has been moved
on behalf of the parties, supported by their respective
affidavits, seeking to compound offences under the aforesaid
sections.
3. It is contended in the compounding application
that both – applicants as well as respondent no.2, have
resolved their dispute. Respondent no.2, particularly,
submitted that he doesn’t have any grievance against the
applicants and he wants to put the matter to rest.
4. Applicant no.1-Shiv Charan Prajapati and
respondent no.2-Satish Sharma are present before this Court,
who are duly identified by their respective counsel while
1
2025:UHC:6943
applicant no.2-Asha Devi and applicant no.3-Kali Charan are
in jail, and on their behalf, their affidavits have been filed by
their sons, in support of the compounding application. On
interaction with the parties, they stated that they have
amicably settled their dispute and does not want to continue
with the present criminal proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has
formally raised objection to the offence made out in the
present case on the ground that the offence is non-
compoundable.
6. 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.”
7. 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.
8. 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.”
9. Having considered the submissions made by
2
2025:UHC:6943
learned counsel for the parties, 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 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.
10. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA No.1 of
2023) is allowed. The offences between the parties are
permitted to be compounded. As a result, the impugned
charge sheet dated 07.07.2017 and summoning order dated
19.11.2018, passed by court of learned Judicial
Magistrate/IInd Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Rudrapur,
Udham Singh Nagar along with proceedings of Criminal Case
No.9910 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Asha Devi and
others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 34
of IPC, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District
Udham Singh Nagar, against the applicants stand quashed.
11. C482 application stands disposed-off, in the
aforesaid terms.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.08.2025
SK
3