2025:UHC:4146 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 783 of 2024 20 May, 2025 Nityanand Gupta And Another --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Anuj Singh Kunjwal, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Shobha Mehra, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the First Information Report No.160 of 2024 dated 29.05.2024, under Section 326 IPC, registered with Police Station I.T.I. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of 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 petitioners and respondent nos.3 & 4 are neighbours and with the intervention of elderly persons and family members of both the petitioners and 1 2025:UHC:4146 respondent nos.3 & 4 are ready to settle the dispute amicably and the respondent no.3 does not want to prosecute the petitioners. 5. Petitioner no.1 (Nityanand Gupta), petitioner no.2 (Raghav Gupta), respondent no.3-informant (Preeti Sharma) and respondent no.4-injured (Amit Sharma) are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel. 6. This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent nos.3 and 4. Respondent nos.3 & 4 stated before the Court that they have no grievance against the petitioners and they do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case. 7. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable. 8. 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. 9. 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.” 10. 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 2 2025:UHC:4146 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. 11. In this view of the matter, compounding application (IA/1/2024) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report No.160 of 2024 dated 29.05.2024, under Section 326 IPC, registered with Police Station I.T.I. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end. 12. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly. 13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.05.2025 AK 3