Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:4114
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 691 of 2024
19th May, 2025
Shashank Rajora ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Eshan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Uniyal, B.H. for the State.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby petitioner has put to challenge F.I.R. No.481 of 2023 dated 27.06.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC registered with Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, on the ground that parties have entered into an amicable settlement and they want to put this matter to rest.
2. A joint compounding application has been moved on behalf of the parties seeking to compound offences under the aforesaid sections.
3. Petitioner as well as respondent no.2 are present before this Court, through video conferencing, who are duly identified by their respective counsel.
4. The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them and a No Dues Certificate has been issued by the Bank in favour of the petitioner and the 1 2025:UHC:4114 proceedings between the parties, qua, the petitioner may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has formally objected to the compounding application in view of offences being non-compoundable in the present case.
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. 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.
8. Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2024) is allowed.
9. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. The impugned F.I.R. No. 481 of 2023 dated 27.06.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC registered with Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District 2 2025:UHC:4114 Haridwar is hereby quashed, qua, the petitioner. All subsequent proceedings, pursuant to impugned F.I.R., qua, the petitioner also stand quashed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.05.2025 SK 3