Criminal Case No. 9910 of 2018 · High Court of Uttarakhand · 2025

“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.”

7. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of extraordinary power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. 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.”

9. Having considered the submissions made by 2 learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, 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.

10. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2023) is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the impugned charge sheet dated 07.07.2017 and summoning order dated

19.11.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/IInd Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar along with proceedings of Criminal Case No.9910 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Asha Devi and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, against the applicants stand quashed.

11. C482 application stands disposed-off, in the aforesaid terms. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.08.2025 3