SHOBHIT PANCHPAL AND OTHERS vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, US NAGAR

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010195432026

2026:UHC:10018


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No.2226 of 2026
02 November, 2026
Shobhit Panchpal And Others --Petitioners

Versus
Senior Superintendent of Police, U.S. Nagar and Others
--Respondents

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


Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for
petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3
to 5.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.


By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the First Information
Report No.0276 of 2026 dated 10.09.2026, under
Sections 117(2), 191(2), 3(5), 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S.
2023, registered with Police Station Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of compromise entered
into between the parties.
2. Petitioners-Shobhit Panchpal, Amit Singh
Kanyal, Jatin Samant and Karan Singh, respondent
No.3-Haider (complainant), respondent No.5-Ajaz Ahmad
(injured) and respondent No.6-Farman @ Gulfaam
(injured) are present before this court, who are duly
identified by their respective counsel.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2026) is filed, which
are signed and duly supported by separate affidavits by
petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 9.
1

UKHC010195432026

2026:UHC:10018
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that the matter between the
petitioners and private respondents has now amicably
been settled and as such no grievance now left to pursue
with the impugned FIR. It is thus, prayed that the
present first information report be quashed in terms of
the compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. During interaction, petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4
submit that they are pursuing different Courses while
petitioner No.2 submits that he is making preperation
for joining in the Indian Army. Respondent Nos.3 to 5
submit that they are working in the private sector. They
stated that the matter has now amicably been settled
between them and they need this dispute to put at rest
and do not want to prosecute the above case against the
petitioners in view of the amicable settlement arrived at
between them. They fairly conceded that they have no
objection, if compounding application is allowed.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that
offence under Sections 191(2) of BNS, 2023, is non-
compoundable, however, other offences alleged against
the petitioners are compoundable.
7. 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

UKHC010195432026

2026:UHC:10018
8. 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.
9. 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.”


10. 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

UKHC010195432026

2026:UHC:10018
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.
11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/
2026) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No.0276 of 2026 dated 10.09.2026, under
Sections 117(2), 191(2), 3(5), 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S.
2023, registered with Police Station Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed. Consequently,
all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the
impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end.
12. In view of the above, the criminal writ petition
is allowed.



(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.11.2026
PN
PREETI
NEGI
Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c1643 2f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9 229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2026.11.02 18:28:17 +05'30'



4