Irshad and Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand & others

Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners (appeared through V.C.). Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 (appeared through V.C.). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the First Information Report No.0205 of 2025 dated 02.03.2025, under Sections 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage), Act, 2019 and Sections 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352, 64(2)(m), 77, 79 of BNS, 2023, registered with Police Station Manglore, District Haridwar in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application signed by all petitioners and respondent no.3 has been filed, which is duly supported by separate affidavits of the parties.

4. The ground for seeking compounding of 1 offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present first information report be quashed terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable.

6. Petitioner no.1 (Irshad), petitioner no.2 (Shami @ Abdul Shami), petitioner no.3 (Parvej), petitioner no.4 (Smt. Sumani), petitioner no.5 (Junaid) and respondent no.3 (Smt. Jareen) are present in the Court through V.C. being duly identified by their respective counsel.

7. The Court also had an interaction with the respondent no.3 (Smt. Jareen) the informant about the compromise, to which, she fairly conceded that she has no objection if compounding application is allowed.

8. So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a 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 a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”

9. 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.

10. Further, the Apex Court has permitted 2 compounding of such offences in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.

11. 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 a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it 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 or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would 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.”

12. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would remain a 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 a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

13. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report No.0205 of 2025 dated 02.03.2025, under Sections 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on 3 Marriage), Act, 2019 and Sections 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352, 64(2)(m), 77, 79 of BNS, 2023, registered with Police Station Manglore, District Haridwar is hereby quashed. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end.

14. Present criminal writ petition, along with all other pending applications, stands disposed of accordingly. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.03.2025 4