Uttarakhand High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Uttarakhand HC Quashes FIR Against Petitioners, Including Attempt-To-Murder Charge, After Complainant And Injured Parties Settle

NAZIM ALI ALIAS NAZIM AND ORSv.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Uttarakhand HC Quashes FIR Against Petitioners, Including Attempt-To-Murder Charge, After Complainant And Injured Parties Settle. NAZIM ALI ALIAS NAZIM AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Uttarakhand High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. 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 compounding application and accepted the compromise.

It also directed

It quashed FIR No. 289 of 2026 and all subsequent proceedings arising from it qua the petitioners, allowed the criminal writ petition, and disposed of any pending applications.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged FIR No. 289 of 2026, registered at Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 191(1), 117(2), 309(4), 324(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 2

They sought quashing on the basis of a compromise with respondent No. 3, the informant. The parties filed a joint compounding application supported by affidavits; the informant and injured persons stated that they wished to resolve the dispute and not pursue the prosecution.

¶ 2–6

The State objected that the offences were non-compoundable.

¶ 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

¶ 7–10

ii.2. Whether the compromise and circumstances of this case justified quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioners.

¶ 11

03Law Applied

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs compounding, and non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded under that provision.

¶ 8–10

However, under the inherent power recognised by Section 482 of the Code, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in an appropriate case where the parties have settled their dispute.

¶ 8–10

As stated in Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653, and reiterated in Jaiveer Malik & Another v. State of Delhi, Criminal Appeal Nos. 864–866 of 2024, quashing may be appropriate where the offences are personal in nature, do not affect public peace or tranquillity, and quashing would secure the ends of justice; offences of grave societal concern, such as murder or rape, ordinarily cannot be effaced by compromise.

¶ 8–10

Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 109Section 115Section 191Section 117Section 309Section 324Section 351Section 352

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 307Section 326

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 320Section 482

04Reasoning

The Court considered the parties’ settlement, the informant’s no-objection, and affidavits from the injured persons—including those lodged in jail—stating that they did not wish to continue the prosecution.

¶ 5–6

Applying the principles in Yogendra Yadav and Jaiveer Malik, it 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.

¶ 11

05Holding

The Court allowed the compounding application and accepted the compromise.

¶ 12–14

It quashed FIR No. 289 of 2026 and all subsequent proceedings arising from it qua the petitioners, allowed the criminal writ petition, and disposed of any pending applications.

¶ 12–14
Uttarakhand High Court

Original Court PDF

NAZIM ALI ALIAS NAZIM AND ORSvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Uttarakhand High Court · November 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment