After Complainant And Injured Parties Settle, Uttarakhand HC Quashes FIR Including Non-Compoundable BNS Rioting Offence

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could quash the FIR, including the allegation under non-compoundable Section 191(2) BNS, in view of the parties’ compromise.

The court held

The Court allowed the compounding application and accepted the compromise.

It also directed

It quashed FIR No. 0276 of 2026, including the allegations under Sections 117(2), 191(2), 3(5), 351(2) and 352 BNS, and ordered that all subsequent proceedings arising from the FIR would come to an end.

The writ petition was allowed.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged FIR No. 0276 of 2026, registered at Police Station Khatima under Sections 117(2), 191(2), 3(5), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–6

The petitioners and private respondents filed a joint compounding application supported by affidavits, stating that they had amicably settled the dispute and that the private respondents did not wish to pursue the case.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–6

The State submitted that Section 191(2) was non-compoundable, although the other alleged offences were compoundable.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–6

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could quash the FIR, including the allegation under non-compoundable Section 191(2) BNS, in view of the parties’ compromise.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 6–9

ii.Whether, on the facts and settlement, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve the interests of justice.

p. 4 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

The Court relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, for the principle that Section 320 CrPC does not bar the High Court from quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings where necessary to secure the ends of justice.

p. 2 · ¶ 7

It also applied Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, which distinguishes the High Court’s power to quash proceedings from a criminal court’s statutory power to compound offences under Section 320 CrPC.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–9

Under Gian Singh, the High Court may quash proceedings following a settlement where, having regard to the case’s facts, the possibility of conviction is remote or bleak and continuation would be unfair, oppressive, or an abuse of process.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–9

The Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

p. 3 · ¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 117 Section 191 Section 3 Section 351 Section 352

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 320

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the parties had settled the dispute and recorded that the private respondents had no objection to the application being allowed.

p. 4 · ¶ 10–11

Applying B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh, it concluded that the compromise left only a remote or bleak possibility of conviction and that continuing the proceedings would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice.

p. 4 · ¶ 10–11

It therefore considered the case appropriate for quashing despite the non-compoundable nature of Section 191(2).

p. 4 · ¶ 10–11