Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5601
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application U/s 528 No.973 of 2025
02nd July, 2025
Parmanand Joshi ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ..........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Dheeraj Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 to 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The present C528 application has been filed by
the applicant for quashing the charge sheet dated
23.08.2024 and impugned cognizance/summoning order
dated 03.10.2024 and entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No.2035 of 2024, State Vs. Parmanand Joshi,
under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC registered
at Police Station Kotwali Champawat, District
Champawat, pending before learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Champawat, 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 nos.3 to 5,
have resolved their dispute. Respondent nos.3 to 5
submitted that they don’t have any grievance against the
applicant and they want to settle the matter.
4. Both – applicant and respondent nos.3 to 5 are
present before this Court, who are duly identified by their
1
2025:UHC:5601
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
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 the2
2025:UHC:5601
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 dated 23.08.2024 and impugned
cognizance/summoning order dated 03.10.2024 and
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2035 of 2024,
State Vs. Parmanand Joshi, under Sections 279, 337,
338 and 427 of IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali
Champawat, District Champawat, pending before learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, against the
applicant stand quashed.
11. C528 application stands disposed-off, in the
aforesaid terms.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.07.2025
SK
3