Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 29 April, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 29 April, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                                   2025:UHC:3236



     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
         Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2429 of 2023
                                 29th April, 2025
Shakeel Ahmad and another                                   ...........Applicants

                                      Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                             ..........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Basant Singh, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Present C482 application has been filed by the applicants
along with compounding application for quashing the impugned Charge
Sheet No.81 of 2016 dated 29.06.2016 and summoning order dated
22.08.2017 in Criminal Case No.4281 of 2017, State Vs. Shakil Ahmad
and another, under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending before the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh
Nagar.

2. For the said purpose, a joint compounding application has
been moved by the parties, supported by their respective affidavits, in
which it has been narrated by both the parties that they have settled their
dispute and do not want to proceed with the instant criminal proceedings.

3. On interaction with both the parties, they stated that they
have settled all their disputes amicably and do not want to prolong the
matter any further as they are cousins.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has formally
objected to the compounding application in view of offences being non-
compoundable in the present case.

5. 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

1
2025:UHC:3236
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.”

6. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel
for the parties, this Court is convinced that once the parties have decided
to settle their dispute amicably, no fruitful purpose would be served to
ask the parties to face the trial, in a case, which would ultimately result
into acquittal as the said exercise would be a futile exercise between the
trial court, given the compromise entered between the parties.

7. 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 No.81 of 2016
dated 29.06.2016 and summoning order dated 22.08.2017 in Criminal
Case No.4281 of 2017, State Vs. Shakil Ahmad and another, under
Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending before the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar is hereby
quashed, qua, the applicant.

8. C482 application stands disposed-off, in the aforesaid
terms.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.04.2025
SK

2