C482/643/2024 of GAURAV SAINI AND ORS. Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.643 of 20244thMarch, 2025

Gaurav Saini and Ors

--Applicants

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------Presence:-Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the Applicants.Mr. Vipul Painuly and Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned B.Hs. for the State. Mr. Pankaj Semwal, learned counsel for private respondents.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Compounding application (IA/1/2024) has been moved on behalf of the parties seeking to compound the offences u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST Act along with entire proceedings of SST No.22 of 2020, State v. Gaurav Saini & others (Crime No.214 of 2020) pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar.

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 three applicants as well as respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 (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 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.”

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2024) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire proceedings of SST No.22 of 2020, State v. Gaurav Saini & others (Crime No.214 of 2020) pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar for the offences u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST Act are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

10. Present C482 application, along with all other pending applications, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.03.2025