Aman Kashyap & Ors vs State Of Uttarakhandand & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the First Information Report No.70 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025, under Sections 115(2) and 324(4) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Tanakpur, District Champawat on the ground of settlement and compromise entered into between the parties.

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.

In the compounding application, it has been stated that petitioners and respondent no.3 are living in the same locality and due to some misunderstanding present FIR has been lodged. It has further been stated that parties have settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of respectable members of both the families and want to live happily and secured life.

Petitioner no.1-Aman Kashyap (appeared through V.C.), petitioner no.2-Kunal Yadav @ Ravi Yadav, petitioner no.3-Vikas Yadav @ Vikki, petitioner no.4-Babulal Yadav and respondent no.3-Munesh Balmiki (appeared through V.C.) are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.

This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.3-Munesh Balmiki. Respondent no.3-Munesh Balmiki stated before the Court that he has no grievance against the petitioners and he does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.

Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that one of the offences sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.

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.

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.”

So far as the proceedings under the SC/ST Act are concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequences of a compromise in this regard in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635. The Court has made the following observations in paragraphs 16 and 17, which are reproduced hereinbelow:"

“16. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. The courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.

On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a “special statute” would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482CrPC.”

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.

In this view of the matter, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report No.70 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025, under Sections 115(2) and 324(4) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Tanakpur, District Champawat 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.

Present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly.