Uttarakhand HC Quashes BNS Section 69 FIR Against Married Man After Settlement With Widow-Complainant, Orders ₹1 Lakh Payment To Her

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could quash the FIR for a non-compoundable offence on the basis of a settlement between the petitioner and the informant.

The court held

The Court allowed the joint application and accepted the compromise.

It also directed

It quashed FIR No. 0442 of 2026 and consequential proceedings qua the petitioner, subject to the petitioner paying ₹1,00,000 to respondent No. 2.

The criminal writ petition was accordingly allowed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged FIR No. 0442 of 2026, registered at Police Station Kashipur under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1–5

The petitioner and respondent No. 2, the informant, filed a joint application supported by affidavits, stating that they had amicably settled the dispute.

¶ 1–5

Respondent No. 2 confirmed the settlement before the Court and expressed no objection to quashing the FIR.

¶ 1–5

The State opposed the application on the ground that the offence was non-compoundable.

¶ 1–5

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could quash the FIR for a non-compoundable offence on the basis of a settlement between the petitioner and the informant.

¶ 5–8

ii.Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be contrary to the interests of justice.

¶ 9

03Law Applied

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

¶ 6

It also applied Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, which distinguishes the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction from statutory compounding and permits quashing after settlement where the prospect of conviction is remote or bleak and continuation would be unfair, oppressive, or an abuse of process.

¶ 7–8

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

¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 69

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 320

04Reasoning

Although the State objected that the offence was non-compoundable, the Court treated that objection as not precluding the exercise of its quashing jurisdiction.

¶ 5, 9

It accepted the parties’ settlement and respondent No. 2’s stated lack of objection, and concluded that the settlement left only a remote or bleak possibility of conviction.

¶ 5, 9

On that basis, it found that continuing the proceedings would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice.

¶ 5, 9

The Court also imposed a payment condition, stating that it was intended to account for the public time spent by the investigating agency and deter future conduct.

¶ 10