HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.553 of 2024 Farman & another ………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………Respondents Mr. Zakir Ali, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State.

Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, Advocate for the informant.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have put to challenge the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.127 of 2019 (Criminal Case No.1877 of 2020), State Vs. Farman and another, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 of IPC at P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar pending before the A.C.J.M. 1^st Haridwar, District Haridwar. 2. Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2024) has been filed by the parties in the present C482 application stating therein that the matter has now been amicably settled between the parties and they do not want to proceed further with the matter.

3. Today, applicant no.1-Farman is present before the Court whereas applicant no.2-Kadeer is not present, since he is stated to be hospitalized, however, his father is present before the Court to verify the contents of compounding application. Similarly, respondent nos.2 to 4 are also present, physically, before this Court. Parties are duly identified by their respective Advocates.

4. On interaction with the parties, it was found that they do not want to prolong the matter any further and want to settle their disputes amicably.

5. Objection was called from the State and it is objected by the State that it is a serious offence allegedly committed by the applicants, therefore, the same should not be compounded.

6. It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the offences under Section 323, 504 and 506 are compoundable while Section 452 IPC is non-compoundable.

7. The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (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. 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 wherein it was held that-

“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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the vi