Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5599
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 528 No.975 of 2025
02nd July, 2025
Omvir Singh Yadav ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Deepak Chandra, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Lalit Goswami, Advocate for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present C528 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the Charge Sheet No.526
of 2020 dated 15.11.2020, under Section 25/3 of Arms
Act, 1959 and Section 308 of IPC and entire proceedings
of Session Trial No.23 of 2023, State Vs. Omvir Singh
Yadav, pending in the court of learned Ist Additional
Sessions Judge, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar arising out of FIR
No.454 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020 under Section 307 IPC
registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, against the applicant.
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 – applicant as well as respondent no.3, have
resolved their dispute. Respondent nos.3 also submitted
that he doesn’t have any grievance against the applicant
1
2025:UHC:5599
and he wants to settle the matter.
4. Both – applicant and respondent nos.3 are
present before this Court, who are duly identified by their
respective counsel. On interaction with the parties, they
stated that they have amicably settled their dispute and
do 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
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.
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 statutory2
2025:UHC:5599
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
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 2025) is allowed. The offences between the
parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the
Charge Sheet No.526 of 2020 dated 15.11.2020, under
Section 25/3 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 308 of IPC
and entire proceedings of Session Trial No.23 of 2023,
State Vs. Omvir Singh Yadav, pending in the court of
learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, Udham
Singh Nagar, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar
arising out of FIR No.454 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020
3
2025:UHC:5599
under Section 307 IPC registered at Police Station
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, shall stand
quashed, subject to payment of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) by the applicant, 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
applicants in future for venturing such a dare devil
act/offence. C528 application stands disposed-off
accordingly.
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.07.2025
SK
4