HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No. 846 of 2025

06 August, 2025

Nikit Khatri --Petitioner

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand & others

--Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

Mr. Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the First Information Report No.85 of 2025 dated 07.07.2025, under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh on the ground of settlement and compromise entered into between the

parties.

3. 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.

4. In the compounding application, it has been stated that the petitioners and respondent no.3 has amicably settled their dispute with the intervention of elder members of the community and he did not want to

proceed further against the petitioner.

5. Petitioner-Nikit Khatri and respondent no.3- Pushkar Dutt Kapri are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.

6. This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.3. Respondent no.3-Pushkar Dutt Kapri stated before the Court that he has no grievance against the petitioner and he does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.

7. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that offence sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State of Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of 2024, wherein, the proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.223 of 2016 were set aside, which too were registered under Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of Yogendra Yadav case as noted below.

9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC

653, in Para 4 it has been observed as under:-

“4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non- compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) (2012) 10 SCC 303. However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise a