2025:UHC:10309 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No.1986 of 2025 20th November, 2025 Kamal Singh Dhami and ors. ………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vishwa Prakash Bahuguna, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Saif Hameed, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The present C528 application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet dated 20.08.2022 (FIR No.0130 of 2022 dated 06.05.2022), under Sections 147, 427, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered with Police Station Premnagar, Dehradun as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 28.01.2023, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.887 of 2023, State Vs. Padam Singh and others. 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 no.2, particularly, submitted that she doesn’t have any grievance against the applicants and she wants to put the matter in the past. 1 2025:UHC:10309 4. Both – applicants and respondent no.2 are present before this Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction with the parties, they stated that they have amicably settled their dispute and does not want to continue with the present criminal proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has formally raised objection to the offence made out in the present case on the ground that Section 147 of IPC is 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 extraordinary and inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. (Section 359 of B.N.S.S. 2023) does not limit or affect the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023. 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 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 2 2025:UHC:10309 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 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. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2025) is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the impugned charge sheet dated 20.08.2022 (FIR No.0130 of 2022 dated 06.05.2022), under Sections 147, 427, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered with Police Station Premnagar, Dehradun as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 28.01.2023, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.887 of 2023, State Vs. Padam Singh and others, against the applicants stand quashed. 11. C528 application stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.11.2025 SK 3