HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1162 of 2025 Mohd. Monish alias Monish Malik …..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………Respondents Presence:- Mr. Ankush Singhal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. Basant Singh, Advocate for the complainant/respondent no.4. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner along with the compounding application (IA/1/2025) for quashing the FIR No.141 of 2025 under Sections 305(a), 331(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at P.S. Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. 3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application has also been filed by the parties, which is duly supported by separate affidavits of the parties. 4. In the compounding application, it has been stated that the petitioner and respondent no.4 have amicably settled their disputes amicably and now wish to lead a peaceful and secure life. They have assured that no such incident will occur in the future and that their differences have now been resolved. 1 5. The petitioner and respondent no.4 are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel. 6. This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.4, who clearly stated before the Court that he has no grievance against the petitioner and he does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that offence(s) sought to be compounded is 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 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 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. 10. 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 2 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. 11. In this view of the matter, Compounding Application (IA/1/2025) is allowed. As a result, the FIR No.141 of 2025 under Sections 305(a), 331(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at P.S. Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) by the petitioner 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. Depositing the amount towards payment of fine shall be a condition precedent for quashing of proceedings. 12. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 25.09.2025 Ravi 3