HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No.141 of 2025

28th February, 2025 Lata --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Prateek Tripathi, 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.0024 of 2024 dated 28.09.2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered with Police Station Thailisain, District Pauri Garhwal in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application signed by both the petitioner and respondent no.3 has been filed, which is duly supported by separate affidavits of the parties.

4. The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present first information report be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable.

6. Petitioner-Lata and respondent no.3-Kalam Dass are present in the Court through V.C. being duly identified by their respective counsel.

7. The Court also had an interaction with the respondent no.3 (Kalam Dass), the informant about the compromise, to which, he fairly conceded that he has no objection if compounding application is allowed.

8. 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.”

9. 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 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. Further, the Apex Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.

11. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below:

“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. ………………… In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction