Sunil Balmiki & Ors vs State Of Uttarakhandand & Ors

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.0069 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025, under Sections 115(2), 126, 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 351 (2) of BNS, 2023, 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 nos.3 & 4 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-Sunil Balmiki, petitioner no.2-Munesh Balmiki (appeared through V.C.), petitioner no.3-Gaurav Saxena (appeared through V.C.), petitioner no.4-Ajit Kumar (appeared through V.C.) and respondent no.3-Babu Lal Yadav (informant), respondent no.4-Ravi Yadav (victim) are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.

This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent nos.3 & 4. Respondent nos.3 & 4, Babu Lal Yadav and Mr. Ravi Yadav stated before the Court that they have no grievance against the petitioners and they do 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.0069 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025, under Sections 115(2), 126, 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 351 (2) of BNS, 2023, 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.