Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7044
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No.515 of 2025
11th August, 2025
Shahran ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mohd Safdar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State.
Mr. Faizan Ali, Advocate for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The present writ petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby
petitioner has put to challenge F.I.R. No.85 of 2025 dated
16.02.2025, under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of B.N.S.
2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee,
District Haridwar, on the ground that parties have
entered into an amicable settlement and they want to put
this matter to rest.
2. A joint compounding application has been
moved on behalf of the parties seeking to compound
offences under the aforesaid sections.
3. The ground for seeking compounding of
offences is that parties have reached to the terms of
compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached
between them. It is thus, prayed that the present
proceedings between the parties may be quashed in
terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. Learned State Counsel submits that the
offence under Section 317(2) of B.N.S. 2023 is non-
compoundable.
1
2025:UHC:7044
5. Petitioner and respondent no.3 are present
before this Court, through video conferencing, who are
duly identified by their respective counsel.
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. Further, the Apex Court has permitted
compounding of such offences in the case of Nikhil
Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.
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.”
2
2025:UHC:7044
9. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact
that 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. Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2025) is
allowed.
11 Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. The
impugned F.I.R. No.85 of 2025 dated 16.02.2025, under
Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of B.N.S. 2023 registered at
Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar is
hereby quashed. All subsequent proceedings, pursuant
to impugned F.I.R., against the petitioner also stand
quashed subject to payment of ₹20,000/-, in the High
Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund, Nainital, for
the reason that the parties have wasted the valuable public
time of the investigating agency and further to act as a
deterrent against the petitioner so that he would not
indulge in such criminal activities in future.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
11.08.2025
SK
3