8 May vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 217 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

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

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                          2025:UHC:3616
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Writ Petition Criminal No. 376 of 2025
                           08 May, 2025
Ashish Rana And Ors.                                     --Petitioners
                               Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Ors.                      --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Ms. Irum Zeba, Mr. Rafat Munir Ali and Mr. Ravikant
      Mahajan, learned counsel for petitioners.
      Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Ms.
      Sweta Badola Dobhal for the State of Uttarakhand/
      respondent Nos.1 and 2.
      Mr. Vibhor Tewari, learned counsel for respondent
      Nos.3 and 4.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Learned State Counsel has passed on its counter affidavit before the Court, which is taken on record.

3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the First Information Report No.0270 of 2024 dated 25.08.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 324(2) and 351(3) of the B.N.S. Act 2023, registered with Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

4. Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) is filed duly supported by separate affidavits by petitioners, respondent Nos.3 and 4.

5. 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

2025:UHC:3616 reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present first information report be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

6. Petitioners-Ashish Rana, Naveen Bhatt @ Naveen Rana, Karan Singh @ Karan Singh Chaudhary, Mukul @ Mukul Rana, Akshay Kumar @ Akshay Thakur, Sana Siddiqui @ Sanna Siddiqui, respondent No.3-Shubham Singh (injured) and respondent No.4- Raghuveer Singh (complainant) are present before this Court, being duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent Nos.3 and 4 stated that they have buried the hatchet and no more want to be involved in the impugned criminal proceedings. For the said purpose, the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 & 4 have agreed upon a Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) and as per the said MoU, they do not want to proceed with the impugned criminal proceedings. They fairly conceded that they have no objection if compounding application is allowed.

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

8. 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

2025:UHC:3616 case as noted below.

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

2025:UHC:3616 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'.

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.0270 of 2024 dated 25.08.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 324(2) and 351(3) of the B.N.S. Act 2023, registered with Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, is hereby quashed. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end.

13. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

(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=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,

NEGI serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5B F08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.05.08 16:22:59 +05'30'