The Uttarakhand High Court affirms that even where some alleged offences are non-compoundable, it has the inherent power to quash such FIRs and proceedings in light of settlement if the facts justify it; this judgment follows and applies the Supreme Court’s principles from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Dimpey Gujral v. UT of Chandigarh—providing binding authority within Uttarakhand and persuasive value elsewhere for private disputes involving simple injuries.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCRL/1316/2025 of AAZAM AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010168612025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Dimpey Gujral |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Quashing proceedings, Compounding of Offences, Article 226 Constitution |
| Questions of Law | Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences can be quashed upon settlement |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The judgment confirms that where parties have amicably settled and injuries are simple, High Courts may quash FIRs and proceedings—even for non-compoundable offences—under Article 226 or inherent powers, provided justice would be served and the dispute is private in nature. The Court noted opposition from the State, but prioritized the settlement and simple nature of injuries. The rationale flows from binding Supreme Court authorities allowing quashing in such circumstances. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on the principle that High Courts have inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings where parties have settled, particularly where the offences are of a private character and the injuries are simple. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 295/2024 (Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 IPC) at PS Kotwali, Roorkee. Parties submitted a compounding application and confirmed settlement. Respondent acknowledged simple injuries and expressed no desire to pursue the proceedings further. The State opposed quashing on ground of non-compoundable offences. The Court recorded parties’ statements and satisfaction regarding the settlement and quashed the proceedings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | Supreme Court: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012); Dimpey Gujral v. UT of Chandigarh (2012) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that High Courts can quash even non-compoundable criminal proceedings on settlement in appropriate cases where the offence is of a private nature and injuries are simple.
- State opposition to settlement is not always decisive if parties are willing, the dispute is private, and justice would be served.
- Lawyers can rely on this judgment (and the Supreme Court precedents) to seek quashing in similar matters involving simple hurt and analogous non-compoundable offences.
- Confirms compounding/settlement can be recognized by High Courts under Article 226 even in writ jurisdiction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the compounding application jointly moved by petitioners and respondent/victims, supported by affidavits and legal counsel.
- The presence and voluntary statements of parties (including identification via video conference and in person) were recorded in open court.
- The respondents/victims confirmed settlement and stated that the injuries sustained were simple in nature; they explicitly did not wish to pursue further.
- The State objected to compounding on the ground that certain offences alleged (e.g., Sections 147, 148, 504, 506 IPC) are non-compoundable under law.
- The Court applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Dimpey Gujral v. UT of Chandigarh (2012), which held that High Courts have power to quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences in light of settlement between parties if justice requires, especially for private disputes not affecting society at large.
- Upon satisfaction that the facts and circumstances justified such relief, the Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom, thereby allowing the compromise.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of FIR on the ground that the dispute had been amicably settled; submitted a compounding application supported by affidavits; emphasized that both parties were present and verified the settlement before the Court.
Respondents (Complainant/Victims)
- Acknowledged simple injuries; stated explicitly that the dispute had been settled; expressed that they did not wish to pursue the matter further.
State
- Strongly opposed the compounding application; argued that some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable.
Factual Background
An FIR (No. 295 of 2024) was lodged on 01.05.2024 at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, Haridwar, invoking Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC against the petitioners. The dispute was between private parties and related to an incident resulting in simple injuries to one of the respondents. Subsequent to registration of the case, the parties settled the dispute mutually. They filed a compounding application before the Court, supporting their settlement with affidavits, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court dealt with its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings.
- The offences invoked in the FIR included both compoundable and non-compoundable offences under the IPC (Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506).
- Citing Supreme Court case law, the Court recognized that in exercise of its inherent or constitutional powers, it can quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences upon satisfaction that the dispute is private and settlement serves justice.
- No specific statutory provision was interpreted beyond recognizing the distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court ensured that parties appeared (in person and via video conference) and were identified by their respective counsels before recording settlement and considering the compounding application.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on quashing for non-compoundable offences (Gian Singh, Dimpey Gujral) is affirmed and applied.