Uttarakhand HC Quashes Attempted-Murder FIR Against Jailed Man After Parties Settle, Orders His Release If Not Held In Another Case

Anil Kumar challenged FIR No. 273 of 2026, registered under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Transit Camp, Udham Singh Nagar.

The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 filed a joint compounding application supported by affidavits.

The petitioner was in jail; respondents 3 and 4 appeared before the Court and stated that, following an amicable settlement, they did not wish to prosecute and had no objection to the application being allowed.

The State objected that the offence was non-compoundable.

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs compounding and must be strictly followed; a non-compoundable offence cannot be compounded under that provision.

However, under the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, criminal proceedings may be quashed where the parties have settled and the offence is personal in nature, does not affect public peace or tranquillity, and quashing would secure the ends of justice.

The Court relied on Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653, which states that grave offences affecting society generally should not be quashed merely on compromise, but proceedings may be quashed in appropriate cases involving private disputes.

It also relied on Jaiveer Malik & Another v. State of Delhi, Criminal Appeal Nos. 864–866 of 2024, as reiterating that principle.

The Court considered the compromise, the respondents’ express lack of objection, and the principles in Yogendra Yadav and Jaiveer Malik.

It concluded that, in the circumstances, the settlement left only a remote or bleak possibility of conviction and that continuing the prosecution would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice.

Although the State objected that the offence was non-compoundable, the Court accepted the compromise and quashed the proceedings.

It directed his immediate release from jail in connection with that FIR, unless he was required to be detained in another case, and allowed the writ petition.