Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 May, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:3558



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
          Writ Petition Criminal No. 406 of 2025
                          07th May, 2025
Mukul Rana Alias Mukul
and Ors                                          .........Petitioners
                               Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others             ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. A.K. Beniwal, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

The present writ petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby petitioners
have put to challenge FIR No.0254 of 2025 dated
17.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2),
191(3), 351(2), 352 of B.N.S. 2023 and 3(1), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered with Police Station
Manglaur, District Haridwar, on the ground that parties
have entered into an amicable settlement and they want to
put this matter to rest.

2. For the said purpose, a joint compounding
application has also been moved by the parties supported
by their respective affidavits.

3. In the compounding application, it has been
narrated by the parties that they have settled their dispute
and both do not want to proceed with the instant criminal
proceedings.

4. Parties are present before this Court, duly
identified by their respective Advocates. On interaction with
both the parties, they stated that they have settled their
disputes amicably and do not want to proceed with the

1
2025:UHC:3558
aforesaid investigation pursuant to the impugned F.I.R.

5. 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.

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. This Court is convinced that once the parties
have decided to settle their dispute amicably, it would not
be appropriate to direct them to join the investigation,
which would ultimately result into nothing, but acquittal
and would amount to be a futile exercise.

8. Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2025) is
allowed.

9. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. The
impugned FIR No.0254 of 2025 dated 17.03.2025, under
Sections 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352 of
B.N.S. 2023 and 3(1), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, registered with Police Station Manglaur, District
Haridwar is hereby quashed. All subsequent proceedings,
pursuant to impugned F.I.R., against the petitioners also
stand quashed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.05.2025
SK

2