Uttarakhand High Court
6 August vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 6 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6882
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 787 of 2025
06 August, 2025
Kartik Negi & another
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Aakib Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the First Information
Report No.281 of 2025 dated 04.07.2025, under Sections
109 & 352 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar on the ground of
settlement and compromise entered into between the
parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application has also been filed by the
parties, which is duly supported by separate affidavits of
the parties.
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that the petitioners and respondent no.3 have
2025:UHC:6882
amicably settled their dispute and respondent no.3 does
not want to proceed further against the petitioners.
5. Petitioner no.1-Kartik Negi, petitioner no.2-
Abhishek Rawat and respondent no.3-Lakshya Singhal
are present in the Court, duly identified by their
respective counsel.
6. This Court interacted with the parties
specifically respondent no.3. Respondent no.3- Lakshya
Singhal stated before the Court that he has no grievance
against the petitionerd and he does not want to pursue
the aforesaid criminal case.
7. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a
preliminary objection to the effect that offences sought to
be compounded is non-compoundable.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State of
Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of 2024,
wherein, the proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.223 of
2016 were set aside, which too were registered under
Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of Yogendra Yadav
case as noted below.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC
653, in Para 4 it has been observed as under:-
"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this
Court can compound the offences under Sections 326
and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable.
Needless to say that offences which are non-
compoundable cannot be compounded by the court.
Courts draw the power of compounding offences from
Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be
strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) (2012)
2025:UHC:6882
10 SCC 303. However, in a given case, the High Court
can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power
under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact
that the parties have amicably settled their disputes
and the victim has no objection, even though the
offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the
High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the
proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of
each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude,
grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced
by quashing the proceedings because that will have
harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be
said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If
such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to
the society. However, when the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and,
therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and
where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on
account of compromise would bring about peace and
would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to
quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a
lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution
would be waste of time and energy. That will also
unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of
peace."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view
that 'if Court is convinced that the offences are entirely
personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public
peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would
bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it
should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the
prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing
such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and
obstruct restoration of peace'
11. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and the principle
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Yogendra Yadav (Supra), which is reiterated in
Jaiveer Malik (Supra), this Court is of the opinion
2025:UHC:6882
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.
12. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA
No.2 of 2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise
arrived at between the parties is accepted. First
Information Report No.281 of 2025 dated 04.07.2025,
under Sections 109 & 352 of BNS, 2023 registered at
Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is
hereby quashed, qua, the petitioners. Consequently, all
the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned
F.I.R. qua the petitioners automatically shall come to
an end.
13. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.08.2025
AK
