HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2080 of 2025 Vishal Bagdi @ Vishal Kumar and another …..Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……Respondents Presence:- Mr. Ajay Joshi, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Siddhartha S. Negi, Advocate i/b Mr. Pankaj Semwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present C528 application has been filed by the applicants along with the compounding application (IA/2/2025) for quashing the Criminal Case No.141 of 2022, State v. Vishal Bagdi and another emanated out of the FIR No.233 of 2021, dated 19.06.2021, registered under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC r/w Section 92(e) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 lodged at P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand with a further prayer to quash the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case, on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. 3. Along with present criminal C528 application, 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 applicants and respondent no.2 have amicably settled their disputes and now they wish to 1 lead a peaceful and secure life. Applicants have assured that no such incident will occur in the future and that their differences have now been resolved. 5. The applicants and respondent nos.2 are present in Court being duly identified by their respective counsel. 6. This Court interacted with the parties, specifically respondent no.2, who clearly stated before the Court that he has settled the dispute with applicants regarding payment of money and he does not want to prosecute them any further. He further stated that since the applicants and he are the close relatives, therefore, the settlement has arrived at between them. 7. So far as the argument of learned State counsel is concerned that the offence u/s 92(e) of the Act of 2016 is non-compoundable, 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.” 8. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect such powers. 2 9. 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. 10. In this view of the matter, Compounding Application (IA/2/2025) is allowed. As a result, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.141 of 2022, State v. Vishal Bagdi and another, in connection with FIR No.233 of 2021 dated 19.06.2021 for the offences u/s 323, 504 and 506 IPC r/w Section 92(e) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 registered at P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.12 of 2023 (CIS No.191 of 2023), State v. Vishal Bagdi and another pending before the Court of Sessions Judge Haridwar are hereby quashed. 11. The C-528 application stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.11.2025 Ravi 3