Jogendra And Ors 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.0075 of 2025 dated 12.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 191(3) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwaron 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 both the parties are entered into compromise and no further dispute remains amongst the parties.

Petitioner no.1-Jogendra, petitioner no.2 Anand, petitioner no.3 Satish @ Satish Kumar, petitioner no.4-Shubham @ Shivam Kumar Saini, petitioner no.5-Neeraj @ Neeraj Kumar, petitioner no.6-Dhiraj Kumar, petitioner no.7-Bobby @ Sanjeev Kumar, petitioner no.8-Akshay, petitioner no.9-Ravi @ Ravi Kumar, petitioner no.10-Pinkal @ Rajesh Kumar, petitioner no.11-Deepak, petitioner no.12-Anshul and respondent no.3-Shivam (informant), respondent no.4-Munesh Devi, respondent no.5-Devi Singh, respondent no.6-Munna Lal, respondent no.7-Gaurav Saini and respondent no.8-Anuj are present in the Court duly identified by their respective counsel.

This Court interacted with the parties and it is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that they are neighbours and residing in the same locality and now do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case to maintain peace and cordial relation.

Per contra, learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection on the ground that some of the offences are non-compoundable.

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.0075 of 2025 dated 12.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 191(3) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar is hereby quashed. 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.