Uttarakhand High Court
Vikas Narang And Ors. --Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6394
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
1. Writ Petition Criminal No.783 of 2025
Vikas Narang and Ors. --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents
2. Writ Petition Criminal No.789 of 2024
Vikas Narang and Anr. --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents
3. Anticipatory Bail Aplication No.1186 of 2024
Vikas Narang and Ors. --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Navneet Kaushik and Mr. Abhimanshu Dhyani, learned
counsel for petitioners.
Mr. Kunwar Vikramaditya Shah and Mr. Kunal Jangid,
learned counsel for petitioner-Anil Bali, appeared through
video conferencing.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas Uniyal,
learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned
counsel for complainant-Atul Bhati.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Since these matters are arising out of the same
First Information Report impugned and common
question of law and facts are involved, hence, they are
taken up together and are being decided by this common
judgment. For the sake of brevity, the facts of WPCRL
No.783 of 2025 are taken into consideration.
2. By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the First Information
Report No.0310 of 2024 dated 19.06.2024, under
Sections 406, 420, 468 and 506 IPC, registered with
Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar, in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/2/2025) is filed, which
is signed and duly supported by separate affidavits by
2025:UHC:6394
petitioners and respondent No.2 (complainant).
4. It has been stated in the affidavit filed in
support of the compounding application that the parties
have reached to the terms of compromise and settled
their dispute amicably. In order to settle the dispute,
earlier an amount of Rs.3,17,43,988/-(Rupees Three
Crore Seventeen Lakh Fourty Three Thousand Nine
Hundred Eighty Eight only) was already paid by the
accused persons/petitioners to the complainant-Atul
Bhati and thereafter, vide this Courts' order dated
25.06.2025 in WPCRL/789/2024, Rs.3,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Crore only) was deposited before this
Court with the Registry of this Court, while, the balance
amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore only) was
handed over to respondent No.2-Atul Bhati vide cheque
No.000787 dated 05.07.2025, in compliance of this
Court's order dated 25.06.2025.
5. There is no dispute with regard to this fact to
the learned counsel for the complainat-Atul Bhati and
the subject matter of the First Information Report has
now been received by the complainant-Atul Bhati.
6. Petitioners-Vikas Narang, Geeta Narang,
Randhir Jha and respondent No.2/complainant-Atul
Bhati are present before this Court through video
conferencing, duly identified by their respective counsel. I
have interacted with both the parties and on interaction
they have stated that after settlement, dispute has been
settled amicably and the money which was subject
matter of the FIR has now received by the respondent
No.2-complainant-Atul Bhati, therefore, the respondent
No.2 does not want to prosecute the above case against
the petitioners in view of the amicable settlement arrived
at between them. Respondent No.2 fairly conceded that
2025:UHC:6394
he has no objection, if compounding application is
allowed.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that though
some of the offences sought to be compounded are non-
compoundable, but, in view of the settlement arrived at
between the parties and the entire amount has been
received by the respondent No.2-complainant in, there is
no hesitation if compounding application is allowed.
8. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
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. 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."
9. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its
extraordinary power can quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not
limit or affect the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
10. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1
SCC (Cri) 160, 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
2025:UHC:6394
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 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."
11. In view of the above, compounding application
(IA/2/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived
at between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No.0310 of 2024 dated 19.06.2024, under
Sections 406, 420, 468 and 506 IPC, registered with
Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar, is hereby
quashed qua the petitioners. Consequently, all the
subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR
automatically shall come to an end qua the petitioners.
Respondent No.2-Atul Bhati may withdraw the amount of
Rs. 3,00,00,000/-(Rupees Three Crore only) deposited to
Registry vide this Court's order dated 25.06.2025.
12. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition
is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Writ Petition
WPCRL/789/2024 stands disposed of. Since, the
impugned FIR is quashed, the anticipatory bail
application has rendered infructuous to the extent it
relates to the petitioners/applicants. Accordingly, the
anticipatory bail application (ABA/1186/2024) is
dismissed as infructuous to the extent as stated above.
However, the anticipatory bail application (ABA/1186/
2024) shall survive in respect of the applicant-Anil Bali.
13. Pending application(s), if any, in all these
matters, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.07.2025
PN
PREETI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe3
8331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81F
AE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959A
C, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.07.25 15:00:23 +05'30'
