HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1139 of 2024

06 June, 2025 Kunwar Vishpendra Singh Alias Sultan --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Shubham Chhabra, learned counsel for the applicant.

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

Mr. Rishab Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Present C482 application has been filed by the applicant along with the compounding application (IA/1/2024) for quashing the cognizance order dated 27.07.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.110 of 2022, State vs. Kunwar Vishpendra Singh @ Sultan, under Sections 308, 325, 427, 504 & 506 IPC, pending in the court of learned ADJ-I, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

3. 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 proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.

5. Applicant (Kunwar), respondent no.2-informant (Sidha Nath Mishra), respondent no.3-injured (Shivam Tirpathi) and respondent no.4-injured (Shubham Tirpathi) are present in the Court being duly identified by their respective counsel.

6. In the compounding application, it has been stated that the applicant and respondent nos.2 to 4 have settled their dispute amicably and have no grievance against each other and respondent nos.2 to 4 do not want to prosecute the applicant in any manner. It is further stated that none of the injured sustained any grievous injury and the injury sustained by the injured was of simple in nature.

7. Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to ask the applicant to appear before the trial court as accused to face the trial.

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 while dealing with the matrimonial matters 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. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings after settlement. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2024) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the cognizance order dated 27