C528/1000/2025 of UTKARSH TYAGI AND ANR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Misc. Application No.1000 of 2025

Utkarsh Tyagi and another ………Applicants

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & another ………Respondents

Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State. Mr. B.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present C-482 application, the applicant has challenged the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2200 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned Addl. CJM, Haldwani District Nainital for the offences u/s 323, 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act in view of the settlement arrived at between them.

3. Along with the present C-482 application, compounding application (IA/1/2025) has been filed which is duly supported by separate affidavits of applicant and respondent No.2.

4. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that Mediation Report (Annexure No.4) has been annexed with the case wherein it is stated that during the mediation session held at Supreme Court Mediation Center, New Delhi, the parties amicably resolved their disputes through an MoU dated 26.10.2024. It is also stated that first motion in pursuant of said agreement has been initiated i.e. by filing petition seeking mutual decree of divorce and the next date is fixed sometimes in the mid of August, 2025 before the Court below.

5. Before this Court also, parties are present in person being identified by their respective counsel and they have reiterated that compromise has been entered into between them outside the Court with their own free will and without any undue pressure, hence, now respondent No.2 has no grudge against the present applicants and she does not want to prosecute them any further.

6. Learned State Counsel also ratified the aforesaid factual position. He however objected the compounding application on the ground that the offences sought to be compounded are serious in nature.

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 butit 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 orF.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their disputewould depend on the facts 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 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/1/ 2025) is allowed.

12. In view of the above, the present C482 application is allowed in terms of the compromise. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2200 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned Addl. CJM, Haldwani District Nainital for the offences u/s 323, 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, pending between the parties, are hereby quashed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Ravi

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.07.2025