HIMANSHU SHEKHAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010200382026

2026:UHC:10302


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 2276 of 2026
05 November, 2026

Himanshu Shekhar
--Petitioner

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
2: Geeta
--Respondents

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

Mr. Rakshit Joshi, learned counsel for petitioners.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr.
Vijay Khandoori, learned Brief for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present writ petition,
petitioner has put to challenge the First Information
Report No.0442 of 2026 dated 05.10.2026, for the
offences punishable under Section 69 of BNS 2023,
registered with Police Station Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, in view of the compromise entered into
between the parties.
2. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2026) is filed and
signed duly supported by separate affidavits by petitioner
and respondent No.2.
3. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that the parties have reached to the
terms of compromise through the intervention of
respected members of society and after mutual
discussion, wherefor a settlement has also reached
between them. It is thus, prayed that the present first
1

UKHC010200382026

2026:UHC:10302
information report be quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. Petitioner-Himanshu Shekhar and respondent
No.2-Geeta (informant) are present before this Court
being duly identified by their respective counsel. On
interaction, respondent No.2 submits that petitioner
No.1 is already married to someone else and respondent
No.2 is a widow and has two kids and both the parties
agreed that no photograph, video, audio recording,
message or other material concerning the other party
shall be published, circulated or threatened to be
circulated, in any form or medium and due to the
intervention of respected members of society and after
mutual discussion, now the matter has amicably settled
between them, thus, she does not want to prosecute the
above case against the petitioner in view of the amicable
settlement arrived at between them. She fairly conceded
that she has no objection if compounding application is
allowed.
5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offence sought to be
compounded is non-compoundable.
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.”

2

UKHC010200382026

2026:UHC:10302
7. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its
extraordinary power can quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not
limit or affect the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the
attention of this Court towards the ruling of
Gian Singh
,
v. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri)
160 , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power
given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude
with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in
accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised
where the offender and victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed. ………………… In this
category of cases, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between
the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put
accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
case despite full and complete settlement and compromise
with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the victim
and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”

9. Since the parties have reached to the terms of
the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that
there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of
conviction in these cases. It can also safely be inferred
that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
3

UKHC010200382026

2026:UHC:10302
justice to permit continuation of the criminal
proceedings. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is
in affirmative, this Court finds these cases fit to permit
the parties to compound the matter.
10. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/
2026) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No.0442 of 2026 dated 05.10.2026, for the
offences punishable under Section 69 of BNS 2023,
registered with Police Station Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed subject to payment of

₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) by the petitioner to
respondent No.2, simply for the reason of wasting public
time of investigating agency and to act as deterrent
against the petitioner in future for venturing such a dare
devil act/offence. Consequently, all the subsequent
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically
shall come to an end qua the petitioner with the aforesaid
condition.
12. In view of the above, the criminal writ petition
is allowed.




(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.11.2026
Nahid





4