WPCRL/1384/2024 of PANKAJ KUMAR OJHA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWrit Petition Criminal No. 1384 of 2024

28 March, 2025

Pankaj Kumar Ojha

--Petitioner

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Others

--Respondents

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

Presence:-

Mr. Harendra Belwal, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Ms. Sweta Dobhal and Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.M. Saklani, 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 FIR No.33 of 2024 dated 02.08.2024, under Sections 351, 352 and 77 of BNS 2023, registered with Police Station Bhimtal, District Nainital, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

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

4. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and the grievances of respondent No.3-complainant has been addressed by the petitioner. 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 preliminary objection to the effect that the offence under Section 77 of BNS 2023, sought to be compounded, is non-compoundable.

2025:UHC:2312

6. Petitioner-Pankaj Kumar Ojha and respondent No.3-Smt. Lata Mehta, are present before this Court, who are being duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent No.3 stated that she doesn’t want to prosecute the above case against the petitioner in view of the amicable settlement arrived between them. She fairly conceded that she 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 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.”

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, 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 criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to 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 beexercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure theends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what casespower to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercisedwhere the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on thefacts 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 is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise the power of the High Court in quashing criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to 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 beexercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure theends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what casespower to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercisedwhere the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on thefacts 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 is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise

2025:UHC:2312

between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

10. Since the parties have reached to the terms of

the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would remain 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. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/3/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The FIR No.33 of 2024 dated 02.08.2024, under Sections 351, 352 and 77 of BNS 2023, registered with Police Station Bhimtal, District Nainital, 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 disposed of accordingly.

13. Interim order dated 06.01.2025 stands vacated.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 28.03.2025