WPCRL/264/2025 of SANDEEP Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No. 264 of 2025

02nd April, 2025

Sandeep and others ………..Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ………..Respondents

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

Presence:-

Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State.

Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for respondent nos.3 to 6.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby petitioners have put to challenge F.I.R. No.0241 of 2025 dated 15.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 140(3), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352, 76 of B.N.S. 2023, and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of S.C.S.T. Act, 1989, registered with Police Station Manlaur, District Haridwar, on the ground that parties have entered into an amicable settlement and they want to put this matter to rest.

2. joint compounding application has been moved on behalf of the parties seeking to compound the offences under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 140(3), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352, 76 of B.N.S. 2023, and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of S.C.S.T. Act, 1989.

3. The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor 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 objected the compounding application arguing that the case relates to the SC/ST Act.

5. All the petitioners as well as respondent nos.3 to 6, through video conferencing (who are informant and victims), are present in the

Court being, duly identified by their respective counsel.

6. 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 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 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.”

7. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would 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.

8. Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2025) is allowed.

9. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. The impugned F.I.R. No.0241 of 2025 dated 15.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 140(3), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352, 76 of B.N.S. 2023, and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of S.C.S.T. Act, 1989, registered with Police Station Manlaur, District Haridwar is hereby quashed. All subsequent proceedings, pursuant to impugned F.I.R., against the petitioners also stand quashed. F.I.R. No.0241 of 2025 dated 15.03.2025, under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 140(3), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352, 76 of B.N.S. 2023, and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of S.C.S.T. Act, 1989, registered with Police Station Manlaur, District Haridwar is hereby quashed. All subsequent proceedings, pursuant to impugned F.I.R., against the petitioners also stand quashed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)

02.04.2025