Nipendra Kumar v. State Of Uttarakhand and Ors

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners, in both the criminal writ petitions, have put to challenge the First Information Report No.0157 of 2025 dated 01.05.2025, under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, registered with Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

3. Along with present criminal writ petition, joint compounding applications (IA Nos.1 of 2025) are filed, which are signed and duly supported by separate affidavits petitioners respondent No.3 (complainant). 1

4. In the compounding applications, it has been stated by the parties that the matter has amicably been settled between them wherefor a compromise was took place between the parties. It is thus, prayed that the present first information report be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Nipendra Kumar submits that the amount under dispute has been returned to the respondent No.3. Learned counsel for petitioner-Mahendra Singh submits that the alleged offences leveled against the petitioner- Mahendra Singh have not been committed by him; he has never cheated the respondent No.3 in any manner; he has falsely been implicated in the present matter as he is father of the co-accused –Rajeev Kumar.

6. Petitioners-Nipendra Kumar, Mahendra Singh and respondent No.3-Avnish Kumar are present before this Court, duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent No.3 stated that the dispute is now amicably settled between them, therefore, he does not want to prosecute the above case against the petitioners in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between them. He fairly conceded that he has no objection, if compounding application is allowed.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners, however, he raised a preliminary objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to be compounded are non- compoundable.

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 2 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 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.

10. 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.”

11. 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 these cases. 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 these cases fit to permit the parties to compound the matter. 3

12. Accordingly, compounding applications (IA Nos.1 of 2025) are hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report No.0157 of 2025 dated 01.05.2025, under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023, registered with Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed qua the petitioners-Nipendra Kumar and Mahendra Singh. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end qua the above petitioners.

13. However, it is made clear that the above FIR stands quashed qua the petitioner-Nipendra Kumar, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), 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 petitioner in future for venturing such a dare devil act/offence.

14. Accordingly, these criminal writ petitions are allowed. PN PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadb e38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE8 1FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D9 59AC, cn=PREETI NEGI (Pankaj Purohit, J.)

18.08.2025 4