HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No.1117 of 2025 Dated- 22nd September, 2025 Uves Raja --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Karmanya Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Chand Joshi, learned AGA for the State. Mr. D. Barthwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed praying to quash the FIR No.176 of 2025 dated 3.6.2025 registered at P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital for the offence punishable u/s 221 of BNS, 2023. Along with the petition, Compounding Application (IA/1/2025) has also been moved seeking prayer to compound the offence between the parties on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. The ground for seeking compounding of offence 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 proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 4. Learned State Counsel objected the compounding application arguing that during investigation, Sections 189(2) and 224 BNS, 2023 have been added against the petitioner. 5. Petitioner and respondent no.2 (who are accused and victim) are present in the Court being duly identified by their respective counsel. The Court had an interaction with respondent no.2 and she clearly stated that she does not want 1 to prosecute the petitioner any further. 6. So far as the question regarding 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. Here in the case in hand, the Court is invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be 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. 9. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2024) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire proceedings as well as all subsequent proceedings pertaining to FIR No.176 of 2025 dated 3.6.2025 registered at P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital are hereby quashed along with the aforesaid FIR. 10. The writ petition, along with all other pending applications, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 22.09.2025 R.Dang 2