Kanhaiya Bisht And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the First Information Report No.0024 of 2024 dated 09.11.2024, under Sections 85, 115, 351(2) & 352 of BNS, 2023, registered with Police Station Sult, District Almora on the basis of 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 the dispute between the parties is purely a matrimonial dispute and petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.3(wife) have entered into compromise and decided to live separately in future and for that, they have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is registered as O.S. No.30 of 2025 in the court of Family Judge, Almora wherein the date of second motion is fixed for 10.10.2025. Thus, respondent no.3 does not want to prosecute the petitioners.

Petitioner no.1-Kanhaiya Bisht (husband of respondent no.3), petitioner no.2-Sher Singh (father-in-law of respondent no.3), petitioner no.3-Smt. Munni Devi (mother-in-law of respondent no.3) and respondent no.3-Smt. Suneeta (wife) are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.

This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 stated before the Court that she has no grievance against the petitioners; she wants to live separately of the petitioner no.1 and for said purpose both of them has decided to seek mutual divorce and a mutual divorce petition has already been filed by them; and she does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.

Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that some 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. First Information Report No.0024 of 2024 dated 09.11.2024, under Sections 85, 115, 351(2) & 352 of BNS, 2023, registered with Police Station Sult, District Almora are 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.