Uttarakhand High Court
Utkarsh Tyagi And Another … vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 2 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.1000 of 2025
Utkarsh Tyagi and another .........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another .........Respondents
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. B.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present C-482 application, the applicant
has challenged the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2200 of
2024 pending before the Court of learned Addl. CJM, Haldwani
District Nainital for the offences u/s 323, 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4
of D.P. Act in view of the settlement arrived at between them.
3. Along with the present C-482 application, compounding
application (IA/1/2025) has been filed which is duly supported by
separate affidavits of applicant and respondent No.2.
4. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the
parties that a Mediation Report (Annexure No.4) has been annexed
with the case wherein it is stated that during the mediation session
held at Supreme Court Mediation Center, New Delhi, the parties
amicably resolved their disputes through an MoU dated 26.10.2024.
It is also stated that first motion in pursuant of said agreement has
been initiated i.e. by filing petition seeking mutual decree of divorce
and the next date is fixed sometimes in the mid of August, 2025
before the Court below.
5. Before this Court also, parties are present in person being
identified by their respective counsel and they have reiterated that a
compromise has been entered into between them outside the Court
with their own free will and without any undue pressure, hence, now
respondent No.2 has no grudge against the present applicants and she
does not want to prosecute them any further.
1
6. Learned State Counsel also ratified the aforesaid factual
position. He however objected the compounding application on the
ground that the offences sought to be compounded are serious in
nature.
7. 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.”
8. 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.
9. 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 to2
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.”
10. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the
compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that 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.
11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/ 2025) is
allowed.
12. In view of the above, the present C482 application is
allowed in terms of the compromise. The entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.2200 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned
Addl. CJM, Haldwani District Nainital for the offences u/s 323, 498-
A IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, pending between the parties, are
hereby quashed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.07.2025
Ravi
3