After Complainant’s Settlement, Uttarakhand HC Quashes FIR And Orders Two Accused Released If Not Wanted In Another Case

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

The court held

The Court allowed the application, accepted the compromise, and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioners.

It also directed

It also directed the release of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 from Sub Jail Haldwani, if they were not required in another case.

01Facts

The petitioners sought to challenge an FIR registered at Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, and requested that it be quashed in light of a compromise with respondent No. 3, the complainant.

¶ 2

A joint compounding application supported by affidavits was filed; petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were in custody, while petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 3 appeared before the Court.

¶ 3–5

The complainant confirmed the settlement and stated that he did not wish to prosecute.

¶ 3–5

The State objected that the offences were non-compoundable.

¶ 6

The judgment contains an apparent discrepancy: paragraph 2 identifies FIR No. 284 of 2026, dated 25 September 2026, with offences under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 309(6), and 351(3) of the BNS, whereas paragraph 11 orders the quashing of FIR No. 289 of 2026, dated 28 September 2026, with a different set of offences. The operative FIR particulars should therefore be verified against the official record.

¶ 2, 11

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

¶ 6–9

ii.Whether the compromise and circumstances of this case justified quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings.

¶ 10

03Law Applied

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs the compounding of offences, and offences not listed as compoundable cannot be compounded by a court.

¶ 8

However, relying on Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaiveer Malik & Another v. State of Delhi, the Court noted that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC where the dispute is essentially personal, the parties have settled, and quashing would secure the ends of justice.

¶ 7–9

That power should not ordinarily be used for grave offences affecting society at large.

¶ 7–9

Provisions in the judgment · 13 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 9 provisions

Section 3 Section 109 Section 115 Section 117 Section 191 Section 309 Section 324 Section 351 Section 352

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 307 Section 326

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 320 Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the offences were non-compoundable but treated the application as one warranting quashing on the basis of the compromise, rather than compounding under Section 320 CrPC.

The complainant confirmed the settlement and expressed no objection to the petitioners’ request.

¶ 5

The Court concluded that the settlement left only a remote or bleak possibility of conviction and that continuing the proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice.

¶ 10

The judgment does not set out a detailed assessment of the alleged conduct or its wider societal impact.