Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:4190
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 85 of 2025
20th May, 2025
Hamid Ali and Ors. ............Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Basant Singh, Advocate for respondent no.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 F.I.R. No.0020 of 2025 dated
23.01.2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 125, 191(2),
309(4) and 324(4) of B.N.S. 2023, registered with Police
Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar, in view of
the compromise entered into between the parties.
3. On the previous date parties appeared before Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court and the Court on the said
date, after their identification by their respective Counsel,
noted their presence.
4. The present criminal writ petition is supported
by a joint Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2025)
which is duly signed and supported by separate affidavits
of petitioners and respondent no.4.
5. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that they have reached to terms of
compromise wherefor a settlement has also been arrived at
between them. It is thus, prayed that the present first
2025:UHC:4190
information report be quashed in terms of the compromise
arrived at between the parties.
6. 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 of B.N.S. Act i.e. attempt to murder.
7. 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 F.I.R. 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.
8. 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
2025:UHC:4190
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."
9. 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 a lame
prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will
also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of
peace'
10. 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.
2025:UHC:4190
11. Accordingly, compounding application is hereby
allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is
accepted. F.I.R. No. No.0020 of 2025 dated 23.01.2025,
under Sections 109, 115(2), 125, 191(2), 309(4) and 324(4)
of B.N.S. 2023, registered with Police Station Kelakhera,
District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed, qua, the
petitioners. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings
pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. automatically shall come
to an end
12. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
20.05.2025
SK
