Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 7 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2017
07 August, 2025
Shahnawaj
--Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Hemant Singh Mahra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned DAG along with Mr. Vikash Uniyal,
learned B.H. for the State.
Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the injured.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment and order
dated 25/26.08.2017 passed by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial
No.208 of 2014, State vs. Shibbu & others, whereby the
appellant-Shahnawaj has been convicted and sentenced as
under: -
S. Conviction Sentence Fine
Sentence
No. in-lieu of
fine
1. 452 IPC 05 years' Rs.1,000/- 15 days'
R.I. S.I.
2. 323/34 06 months' Rs.500/- 05 days'
IPC R.I. S.I.
3. 325/34 05 years' Rs.1,000/- 15 days'
IPC R.I. S.I.
4. 307 IPC 07 years' Rs.2,000/- 01 month
R.I. S.I.
5. 506 IPC - Rs.2,000/- 05 days'
S.I.
All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. The parties have filed the compounding
application (IA No.3121/2025) to show that they have
buried their differences and have settled their disputes
amicably.
3. Learned counsel for the State formally opposed
the compounding application.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the
appellant that some of the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
5. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence
of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences
in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana
and another, (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. 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 of the Court.
7. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the
attention of this Court towards the citation of Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 16, 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.
However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even
though the victim or victim's family and the offender have
settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and
have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand
on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly
the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. 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 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."
8. The instant case is squarely covered by the
above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The obvious
reply to the question posed above is in the affirmative in
view of the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's
case (supra).
9. Parties are present in person before the Court
being identified by their respective counsel.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the
question before this Court is whether compounding
application can be allowed at appellate stage. On this
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant drew
the attention of this Court to Section 320(5) Cr.P.C., which
is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Section 320(5) When the accused has been
committed for trial or when he has been convicted
and an appeal is pending, no composition for the
offence shall be allowed without the leave of the
Court to which he is committed, or as the case
may be, before which the appeal is to be heard."
11. In view of the aforesaid Section 320(5) Cr.P.C.,
this Court is of the view that compounding application can
be allowed even at appellate stage. Accordingly, the
compounding application is allowed and the offences
between the parties are permitted to be compounded.
Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order dated
25/26.08.2017 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.208
of 2014, State vs. Shibbu & others is hereby set-aside qua
the appellant-Shahnawaj, subject to the condition that the
appellant shall deposit Rs.20,000/- before the Uttarakhand
High Court Bar Association Advocates' Welfare Fund within
fifteen days from today for the reason that the parties have
wasted the valuable public time of the investigating agency
and the Courts and further to act as a deterrent against the
appellant so that he would not indulge in such criminal
activities in future. The appellant is, accordingly, acquitted
for the offences under which he has been convicted and
sentenced by the court below, as is also mentioned in the
first and foremost paragraph of this judgment.
12. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(Pankaj Purohit J.)
07.08.2025
AK
