NAZIM ALI ALIAS NAZIM AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010179642026

2026:UHC:10261

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No. 2079 of 2026
05 November, 2026

Nazim Ali Alias Nazim and others --Petitioners

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents

Presence :-

Mr. M.K.Ray, learned counsel for petitioners.
Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3.

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. 289 of 2026 dated 28.09.2026, for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2),
191(1), 117(2), 309(4), 324(2), 351(3) and 352 of BNS
2023, registered with Police Station Gadarpur, 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/2/2026) is filed which
is duly supported by separate affidavits of petitioners and
respondent No.3.
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. Petitioners-Nazim Ali @ Nazim, Asif Ali @ Asif,
1

UKHC010179642026

2026:UHC:10261
Abdul Rehman, Mohd. Naeem @ Naeem, Mohd. Sakib@
Sakib (injured), and respondent no.3-Brijesh Thakur
(informant) are present before this Court being duly
identified by their respective counsel. Jugraj Singh @
Yuvraj Singh and Adesh Thakur, who are also injured,
are in jail. On interaction, respondent No.3 stated that
they are of the same adjoining places and do not want to
prosecute the above case against the petitioners in view
of the amicable settlement arrived between them. They
fairly conceded that they have no objection if
compounding application is allowed.
6. Affidavits of Jugraj Singh @ Yuvraj Singh and
Aadesh Thakur, who are injured in the incident and
lodged in jail, are filed before this Court. From the
reading of the affidavits, it also transcribes that the
victims are ready to compound the matter and they do
not want to proceed further with the first information
report and they want to live with peace, since both the
parties are resident of the adjoining places.
7. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied
upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of
Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State of
passed in
Delhi Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of
2024 , wherein, the proceedings arising out of FIR
No.223 of 2016 were set aside, which too were registered
Yogendra
under Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of
Yadav case as noted below.
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand
2

UKHC010179642026

2026:UHC:10261
reported in , in Para 4 it
and Another (2014) 9 SCC 653
has been observed as under:
“4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court
can compound the offences under Sections 326 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. ”

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined 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’.
11. Having considered the submissions made by
3

UKHC010179642026

2026:UHC:10261
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
, this Court is of the opinion that since the
Malik (Supra)
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.
12. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/2/2026) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived
at between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No. 289 of 2026 dated 28.09.2026, for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2),
191(1), 117(2), 309(4), 324(2), 351(3) and 352 of BNS
2023, registered with Police Station Gadarpur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed qua the
petitioners. Consequently, all the subsequent
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically
shall come to an end qua the petitioners with the
aforesaid condition.
13. The present criminal writ petition stands
allowed accordingly.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.


(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.11.2026
Nahid
4