Omvir Singh Yadav v. Mr. Deepak Chandra, Advocate for the

Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar arising out of FIR No.454 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020 under Section 307 IPC registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, against the applicant.

2. A joint compounding application has been moved on behalf of the parties, supported by their respective affidavits, seeking to compound offences under the aforesaid sections.

3. It is contended in the compounding application that both – applicant as well as respondent no.3, have resolved their dispute. Respondent nos.3 also submitted that he doesn’t have any grievance against the applicant 1 and he wants to settle the matter.

4. Both – applicant and respondent nos.3 are present before this Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction with the parties, they stated that they have amicably settled their dispute and do not want to continue with the present criminal proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has formally raised objection to the offence made out in the present case on the ground that the offence is non- compoundable.

6. 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.”

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. 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 2 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 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 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 2025) is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the Charge Sheet No.526 of 2020 dated 15.11.2020, under Section 25/3 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 308 of IPC and entire proceedings of Session Trial No.23 of 2023, State Vs. Omvir Singh Yadav, pending in the court of learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar arising out of FIR No.454 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020 3 under Section 307 IPC registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, shall stand quashed, subject to payment of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) by the applicant, 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 a dare devil act/offence. C528 application stands disposed-off accordingly.

11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.07.2025 4