HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 167 of 2025 Bharat Bhushan And Ors. --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Pankaj Semwal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.

D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for petitioners.

Mr. Kuldeep S. Rawal and Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuli and Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.

Mr. S.S. Mehra and Ms. Nisha Bora, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the First Information Report No.52 of 2025 dated 20.02.2025, under Sections 125 and 324(6) of BNS 2023, registered with Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) is filed and signed duly supported by separate affidavits by petitioners and respondent No.2.

4. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that the 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. Petitioners-Bharat Bhushan, Virendra Bora, Jeewan Pandey, Monu Pandit and respondent no.2- Ghanshyam Pant are present before this Court being duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent No.2 stated he doesn’t want to prosecute the above case against the petitioners in view of the amicable settlement arrived between them. He fairly conceded that he has no objection if compounding application is allowed.

7. 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.”

8. 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.

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

10. 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