ANIL KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010190052026

2026:UHC:9710


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No. 2174 of 2026
28 October, 2026



Anil Kumar

--Petitioner

Versus
1: State Of Uttarakhand
2: Station House Officer
3: Sapan Sarkar
4: Sukesh Sarkar

--Respondents


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence :-


Ms. Rajni Rangwal, learned counsel for petitioner.
Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Mr. Ankush Singhal, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.3 and 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present writ petition,
petitioner has put to challenge the First Information
Report No.273 of 2026 dated 28.08.2026, under Section
109(1) of BNS 2023, registered with Police Station Transit
Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2026) is filed and
signed duly supported by separate affidavits by
petitioner, respondent Nos.3 and 4.
1

UKHC010190052026

2026:UHC:9710
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that the parties have reached to the
terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also
reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present
first information report be quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Petitioner- Anil Kumar is in jail, who has
annexed his authority letter and his wife- Savitri Devi
has represented him, respondent no.3- Sapan Kumar
and respondent No.4-Sukesh Kumar are present before
this Court being duly identified by their respective
counsel. On interaction, respondent Nos.3 and 4 stated
that they do not want to prosecute the above case
against the petitioner in view of the amicable settlement
arrived between them. They fairly conceded that they
have no objection if compounding application is allowed.
6. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offence sought to be
compounded is non-compoundable.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of
Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State of
Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of
2024 , wherein, the proceedings arising out of FIRNo.223
of 2016 were set aside, which too were registered under
Section 307 of IPC[109 (1) of BNS, 2023], taking
recourse of Yogendra Yadav case as noted below.
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand
and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 , in Para 4 it
has been observed as under:
“4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this
Court can compound the offences under Sections 326
2

UKHC010190052026

2026:UHC:9710
and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable.
Needless to say that offences which are non-
compoundable cannot be compounded by the court.
Courts draw the power of compounding offences from
Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be
strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) (2012)
10 SCC 303. However, in a given case, the High Court
can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power
under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact
that the parties have amicably settled their disputes
and the victim has no objection, even though the
offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the
High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the
proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of
each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude,
grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced
by quashing the proceedings because that will have
harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be
said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If
such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to
the society. However, when the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and,
therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and
where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on
account of compromise would bring about peace and
would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to
quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a
lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution
would be waste of time and energy. That will also
u settle the compromise and obstruct restoration of
n
peace. ”

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that
‘if Court is convinced that the offences are entirely
personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public
peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring
about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should
not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the
prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such
a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy.
That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct
restoration of peace’.
10. Having considered the submissions made by
3

UKHC010190052026

2026:UHC:9710
learned counsel for the parties and the principle
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav (Supra) , which is reiterated in Jaiveer
Malik (Supra) , 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.
11. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/1/2026) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No. 273 of 2026 dated 28.08.2026, under Section
109(1) of BNS 2023, registered with Police Station Transit
Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed qua
the petitioner-Anil Kumar. Consequently, all the
subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR
automatically shall come to an end qua the petitioner-Anil
Kumar.
12. Since, the petitioner-Anil Kumar is in jail and
the impugned FIR having been quashed qua the petitioner-
Anil Kumar, it is provided that the petitioner-Anil Kumar
shall be released immediately from jail pursuant to
aforesaid FIR, if not warranted in any other case.
13. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.


(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
28.10.2026
Nahid



4