WPCRL/696/2025 of SAGAR AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No. 696 of 202503 July, 2025

Sagar & others

Versus

--Petitioners

State of Uttarakhand & others

--Respondents

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

Presence:-

Mr. Chandramauli Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Since the petitioner no.1-Sagar, S/o Mohan Singh had already filed the writ petition for similar prayer in WPCRL No.302 of 2025, which has been dismissed by this Court on 13.06.2025, therefore, the present writ petition cannot be maintainable on behalf of petitioner no.1-Sagar, S/o Mohan Singh.

2. To this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press the present writ petition on behalf of petitioner no.1-Sagar, S/o Mohan Singh.

3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed so far as petitioner no.1-Sagar, S/o Mohan Singh is concerned.

4. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the First Information

Report No.100 of 2025 dated 14.03.2025, under Sections 324(2), 326(g), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Kotwali Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

5. 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.

6. In the compounding application, it has been stated that parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and entered into compromise, now respondent no.3 does not want to prosecute with the petitioner in the present case.

7. Petitioner no.2 (Rahul Maurya), petitioner no.3 (Aayush Maurya), petitioner no.4 (Sagar S/o Ram Naresh), petitioner no.5 (Dinesh Singh Bisht), petitioner no.6 (Himanshu Sharma), petitioner no.7 (Ankush Katariya through V.C.) and respondent no.3-informant (Rahul, S/o Suresh Kumar) are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.

8. This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 stated before the Court that he has no grievance against the petitioners; he wants to live peacefully and he does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case. 9. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised preliminary objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.

10. 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.

11. 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.”

12. 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 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.

13. In this view of the matter, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report No.100 of 2025 dated 14.03.2025, under Sections 324(2), 326(g), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Kotwali Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, subject topayment of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by the petitioners except petitioner nos.3 & 5 (as they were arrested and remained in jail), in the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund, simply for the reason of wasting public time of investigating agency and to act as deterrent against the applicants in future for venturing such

dare devil act/offence. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end qua the petitioners.

14. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

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

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.07.2025