Misc Application No. 1585 of 2025 · High Court of Uttarakhand · 2025

charge sheet dated 06.06.2025 in FIR No.0005 of 2025 dated 21.03.2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

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 – applicants as well as respondent no.2, have resolved their dispute. Respondent nos.2 also submitted that he doesn’t have any grievance against the applicants and he wants to settle the matter. 1

4. Both – Applicant no.1 (Sandeep Singh) and applicant no.2 (Harjinder Singh) are in jail and are being represented by one Mr. Sandeep Singh, s/o Jarnail Singh, r/o Arnjunpur, Raipur, Udham Singh Nagar, who is friend of applicant no.1 (Sandeep Singh) and brother of applicant no.2 (Harjinder Singh), acting on their behest to compound the matter. 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 some of the offences which are 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 528 of the B.N.S.S.,

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 2 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 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 allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the cognizance order dated 11.06.2025, passed in Criminal Case No.1132 of 2025, State Vs. Sandeep Singh and another, under Section 318(4), 351(2), 352 and 61(2) of B.N.S. 2023 r/w Section 66-C of the I.T. Act, 2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar and 3 charge sheet dated 06.06.2025 in FIR No.0005 of 2025 dated 21.03.2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, shall stand quashed. C528 application stands disposed-off accordingly. Both – Applicant no.1 (Sandeep Singh) and applicant no.2 (Harjinder Singh) are in jail in connection with the present prosecution. They shall be released forthwith from jail, if not wanted in any other criminal case.

11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.09.2025 4

charge sheet dated 06.06.2025 in FIR No.0005 of 2025 dated 21.03.2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

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 – applicants as well as respondent no.2, have resolved their dispute. Respondent nos.2 also submitted that he doesn’t have any grievance against the applicants and he wants to settle the matter. 1

4. Both – Applicant no.1 (Sandeep Singh) and applicant no.2 (Harjinder Singh) are in jail and are being represented by one Mr. Sandeep Singh, s/o Jarnail Singh, r/o Arnjunpur, Raipur, Udham Singh Nagar, who is friend of applicant no.1 (Sandeep Singh) and brother of applicant no.2 (Harjinder Singh), acting on their behest to compound the matter. 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 some of the offences which are 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 528 of the B.N.S.S.,

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 2 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 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 allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the cognizance order dated 11.06.2025, passed in Criminal Case No.1132 of 2025, State Vs. Sandeep Singh and another, under Section 318(4), 351(2), 352 and 61(2) of B.N.S. 2023 r/w Section 66-C of the I.T. Act, 2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar and 3 charge sheet dated 06.06.2025 in FIR No.0005 of 2025 dated 21.03.2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, shall stand quashed. C528 application stands disposed-off accordingly. Both – Applicant no.1 (Sandeep Singh) and applicant no.2 (Harjinder Singh) are in jail in connection with the present prosecution. They shall be released forthwith from jail, if not wanted in any other criminal case.

11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.09.2025 4