8 May vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 216 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

8 May vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 8 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:3663
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
          Writ Petition Criminal No. 22 of 2025
                           08 May, 2025
Surya Pratap Rana and Ors.                            --Petitioners
                               Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another                    --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for petitioners.
      Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holder for the State of
      Uttarakhand/respondents.
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.0646 of 2024 dated 15.10.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. Act 2023, registered with Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, and further not to arrest them in pursuant to impugned FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR was lodged in misunderstanding and with aggravated facts, which got unearthed after the complainant (petitioner No.4) and his friends met the petitioner Nos.1 to 3. He further submits that the settlement agreement dated 28.12.2024 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition), underwent between both the parties without any consideration or settlement amount, but merely in bonafide and good faith, therefore, both the parties intent to quash the impugned FIR. He also submits that now the matter has amicably settled between the parties, therefore, petitioner No.4(informant) doesn't wish to prosecute the petitioner Nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be

2025:UHC:3663 compounded are non-compoundable. He further objected to the compounding application on the ground that the offences sought to be compounded are very heinous like 109(1) of B.N.S. Act i.e. attempt to murder.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 FIRNo.223 of 2016 were set aside, which too were registered under Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of Yogendra Yadav case as noted below.

6. 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."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view that 'if Court is convinced that the offences are entirely

2025:UHC:3663 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'.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is allowed. The First Information Report No.0646 of 2024 dated 15.10.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. Act 2023, registered with Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, is hereby quashed. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end.

10. Interim order dated 08.01.2025 stands vacated.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.05.2025 PN PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432

NEGI f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F92 29D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.05.08 16:29:18 +05'30'