2025:UHC:5544 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 106 of 2025 01 July, 2025 Ravi Verma and Ors --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Sadaf, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Faizan Ali, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Anuj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent no.3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the First Information Report No.0025 of 2025 dated 30.01.2025, under Sections 115(2), 318(3) & 352 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Jhabreda, District Haridwar on the ground that an amicable settlement has been taken between the parties. 2. 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. 3. Petitioner no.1 (Ravi Verma), petitioner no.2 (Nishant Verma), petitioner no.3 (Anita Verma), petitioner no.4 (Minakshi Verma @ Meenu) and 1 2025:UHC:5544 respondent no.3/informant (Smt. Priyanka Verma) are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel. 4. This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 stated before the Court that she has no grievance against the petitioners; want to live peacefully and she does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case. 5. In the compounding application, it has been stated that parties have entered into amicable settlement and resolved their disputes; respondent no.3 has no grievance against the petitioners anymore and having no objection, if the impugned FIR is quashed. 6. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offence sought to be compounded is non-compoundable. 7. Since the parties have entered into compromise and are living peacefully, this Court is of the opinion that it will be a futile exercise to ask the petitioners to face the criminal prosecution which would ultimately result into the acquittal. 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 2 2025:UHC:5544 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 of the Court. But here the Court is invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is far wider than 528 BNSS, 2023. 10. In this view of the matter, compounding application (IA/2/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. First Information Report No.0025 of 2025 dated 30.01.2025, under Sections 115(2), 318(3) & 352 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Jhabreda, District Haridwar is hereby quashed. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end. 11. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly. 12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.07.2025 AK 3