Ankit Kumar And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & 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.265 of 2025 dated 15.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 333, 351(2) & 352 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Manglour, District Haridwar 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 neighbours 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.

All the Petitioners and respondent no.3 are present in the Court through V.C., duly identified by their respective counsel.

This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.3-Sandeep. Respondent no.3-Sandeep 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.”

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.265 of 2025 dated 15.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 333, 351(2) & 352 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Manglour, District Haridwar is hereby quashed, subject to the condition that each petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,000/- before the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund within fifteen days from today. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end.

Present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly.