WPCRL/535/2025 of ANIL KUMAR BISHT AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No. 535 of 2025

10 June, 2025

Anil Kumar Bisht & others

Versus

--Petitioners

State Of Uttarakhand & others

--Respondents

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

Presence:-Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the First Information Report No.332 of 2024 dated 12.10.2024, under Section 384 IPC, registered with Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar.

2. Along with present criminal writ petition, joint compounding application has also been filed by the parties, which is duly supported by separate affidavits of the parties.

3. In the compounding application, it has been stated that with the interference of elderly members of the society both the parties have agreed to resolve the dispute. Now, the misunderstanding between the

2025:UHC:4723

petitioners and respondent no.4 has been resolved and petitioner no.4 does not want to prosecute the petitioners.

4. Petitioner no.1-Anil Kumar Bisht, petitioner no.2-Neelam Bisht, petitioner no.3-Sunil Kumar and respondent no.4-Abhishek Jain are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.

5. This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 stated before the Court that he has no grievance against the petitioners; want to live peacefully and he does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.

6. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised preliminary objection to the effect that the offence sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.

7. 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.

8. 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 andanother, 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 notbe 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.” of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would notbe 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.”

2025:UHC:4723

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

10. In this view of the matter, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. First Information Report No.332 of 2024 dated 12.10.2024, under Section 384 IPC, registered with Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar are hereby quashed, subject to the condition that each petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,000/- before the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund within fifteen days from today. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end.

11. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

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

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.06.2025