Uttarakhand High Court
22 July vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 22 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6395
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 553 of 2025
22 July, 2025
Rashid and others
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mehboob Rahi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Kaushal Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the First Information
Report No.0079 of 2025 dated 16.03.2025, under
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
Sections 323, 498-A, 504 & 506 IPC, registered at
Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar
on the ground that an amicable settlement has been
arrived at between the parties.
2. 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.
3. Petitioner no.1 (Rashid), petitioner no.2 (Raja
Hussain @ Razzaq), petitioner no.3 (Smt. Mahroon
Nisha), petitioner no.4 (Sitara) and respondent
no.3/informant (Smt. Gulshan) are present in the
Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.
2025:UHC:6395
4. This Court interacted with the parties
specifically respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 stated
before the Court that she has no grievance against the
petitioners; want to live peacefully and she does not
want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.
5. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that due to intervention of respectable members
and elders of the Society, petitioners and respondent
no.3 settled the matter amicably and respondent no.3
does not want to prosecute the case any further against
the petitioners. It is further stated that Petitioner No.1
and Respondent No.3 jointly filed a divorce petition
under Section 27 of the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil
Code, 2024, before the learned Family Court at
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. The said Court,
vide its judgment and order dated 04.07.2025, granted
a decree of divorce, and presently, the parties are
residing separately.
6. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a
preliminary objection to the effect that the offence
sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.
7. Since the parties have entered into
compromise and are living peacefully, this Court is of
the opinion that it will be a futile exercise to ask the
petitioners to face the criminal prosecution which
would ultimately result into the acquittal.
8. 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
2025:UHC:6395
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
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. But here the Court is
invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India which is far wider than
528 BNSS, 2023.
10. In this view of the matter, compounding
application (IA/2/2025) is hereby allowed. The
compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted.
First Information Report No.0079 of 2025 dated
16.03.2025, under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 323, 498-A, 504 &
506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sitarganj, District
Udham Singh Nagar 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.
11. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
off accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.07.2025
AK
