2025:UHC:5422 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 674 of 2025 26 June, 2025 Mohd Saad And Ors --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Faizan Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Ms. Sadaf Gaur, 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.0030 of 2025 dated 29.03.2025, under Sections 117(2), 191(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Clementown, District Dehradun 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( Mohd. Saad), petitioner no.2 (Neemar Ali), petitioner no.3 (Mohd. Tabish, appeared 1 2025:UHC:5422 through V.C.), petitioner no.4 (Uzer @ Azar), petitioner no.5 (Mohd. Kaif) and respondent no.3 (Aarav- complainant) 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 he has no grievance against the petitioners; want to live peacefully and he does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case. 5. In the compounding application, it has been stated that there is no dispute between the petitioners and the respondent no.3 and as such, respondent no.3 does not wish to pursue the aforesaid criminal proceedings. 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:5422 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/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. First Information Report No.0030 of 2025 dated 29.03.2025, under Sections 117(2) & 191(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Clementown, District Dehradun 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.) 26.06.2025 AK 3