WPCRL/1141/2025 of SANJAY AGRAWAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWrit Petition Criminal No. 1141 of 2025

24 September, 2025

Sanjay Agrawal

--Petitioner

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand & others

--Respondents

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

Presence:-

Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Nikhil Kushwaha, 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.0169 of 2023 dated 14.05.2023, under Section 336 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered with Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar on the ground of settlement and compromise entered into between the parties.

3. Along with present criminal writ petition, joint compounding application (IA No.1/2025) 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 petitioner and respondent no. 3 have settled their dispute outside the Court and do not wish to continue the proceedings in the present case. It is further stated that respondent no. 3 does not want to prosecute

the petitioner.

5. Petitioner (Sanjay Agrwal) and respondent no.3 (Dushyant Kumar) are present in the Court through V.C., duly identified by their respective counsel.

6. This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.3-Dushyant Kumar. Respondent no.3 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 preliminary objection to the effect that offences sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.

8. Since the parties have entered into compromise and are living peacefully, this Court is of the opinion that it will be futile exercise to ask the petitioners to face the criminal prosecution which would ultimately result into the acquittal.

9. So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another,reported in (2003)4 SCC 675and 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 bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such power.”

10. 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 of the Court. But here the Court is invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226

2025:UHC:8572

of the Constitution of India which is far wider than 528 BNSS, 2023.

11. In this view of the matter, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report No.0169 of 2023 dated 14.05.2023, under Section 336 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered with Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar is hereby quashed.Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end.

12. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.09.2025