Ramadhari Gangwar & Another 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.110 of 2025 dated 23.04.2025, under Sections 117(2), 324(4) and 352 BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar on the ground that an amicable settlement has been arrived at 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.

Petitioner no.1 (Ramchandra @ Ramadhari Gangwar), petitioner no.2 (Karan Gangwar) and respondent no.4/informant (Mr. Anil Kumar, S/o Maan Singh) are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.

This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 stated before the Court that he has no grievance against the petitioners; want to live peacefully and he does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.

In the compounding application, it has been stated that due to certain misapprehensions and confusion between the parties, an exaggerated version of the incident was mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR), influenced by the instigation of certain individuals at Police Station Transit Camp, without considering the repercussions and aftereffects of filing such a report. It is further stated that the petitioners and respondent no. 4 have voluntarily resolved their dispute and have arrived at a cordial compromise, owing to the intervention of elders and respected members of the locality. Consequently, respondent no. 4 is ready and willing to compound the matter.

Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offence 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.110 of 2025 dated 23.04.2025, under Sections 117(2), 324(4) and 352 BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar 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.