21 July vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1191 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

21 July vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 21 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:6325



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
         Writ Petition Criminal No. 753 of 2025
                          21 July, 2025
Mohd Bilal                                              --Petitioner
                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Ors.                       --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for petitioner,
      appeared through video conferencing.
      Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas
      Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
      Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
      Mr. Mohd. Ikram, 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, petitioner has put to challenge the First Information Report No.0202 of 2025 dated 08.06.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5) and 324(2) of BNS 2023, registered with Police Station Ram Nagar, District Nainital, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) is filed and signed duly supported by separate affidavits by Sher Khan-representative of petitioner, since petitioner is in jail, and respondent No.3.

4. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that the parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present

2025:UHC:6325 first information report be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Petitioner-Mohd. Bilal is in jail, who is represented by his uncle-Sher Khan. Sher Khan and respondent No.3-Mukul Arya are present before this Court being duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent No.3 stated that he doesn't want to prosecute the above case against the petitioner in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between them. He fairly conceded that he has no objection if compounding application is allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused Ishan fired the respondent No.3 and the petitioner was along with other co-accused persons at the time of alleged incident and the injury sustained to the respondent No.3 is not at a vital part of the body as it was fired at his shoulder. He further submits that now the parties have amicably settled the dispute and now the respondent No.3 does not want to press the present FIR agains the petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable. He further submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature.

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 FIR 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.

2025:UHC:6325

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)

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

2025:UHC:6325 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 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/1/ 2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report No. 0202 of 2025 dated 08.06.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5) and 324(2) of BNS 2023, registered with Police Station Ram Nagar, District Nainital, is hereby quashed qua the petitioner. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end qua the petitioner.

13. The present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 21.07.2025 PN PREETI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331 bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,

NEGI postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE0 64498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.07.21 16:21:38 +05'30'