The Uttarakhand High Court reaffirmed that even when certain offences are non-compoundable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, its inherent jurisdiction allows quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement between parties where the facts and justice so demand. This continues the doctrinal line established in Gian Singh and Dimpey Gujral; the judgment stands as binding precedent within Uttarakhand for the exercise of such power under Article 226.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCRL/1355/2025 of SAGAT SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010171322025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)—Quashing of Proceedings—Compounding/Settlement |
| Questions of Law | Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences under the BNS, 2023 can be quashed on the basis of compromise? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court, following binding Apex Court precedents, held that even if certain offences are non-compoundable under statutory provisions, proceedings may be quashed under the Court’s inherent powers upon satisfaction about settlement and the nature of the offence. Where the injuries are not grievous and parties have voluntarily settled, justice is served by quashing to avoid unnecessary continuation of criminal process. The decision strongly relies on the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Gian Singh and Dimpey Gujral. The opposition from the State is not decisive where the complainant does not wish to proceed and the matter has been amicably resolved. The Court’s discretion must be exercised upon careful consideration of facts and circumstances. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Inherent power to secure ends of justice recognized by Supreme Court in Gian Singh; distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences not absolute for purpose of quashing by High Court. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The parties settled an earlier personal dispute; the complainant (Respondent No.3) stated the injuries were not grievous and does not want to pursue the matter. Offences invoked were under Sections 115(1) and 118(1) BNS 2023. State opposed quashing due to non-compoundability, but the Court found justice would be served by quashing in light of the parties’ settlement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand; cited as binding precedent for quashing criminal proceedings post-settlement even in non-compoundable BNS matters. |
| Persuasive For | May be cited before other High Courts and the Supreme Court for persuasive value regarding similar issues under BNS. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that powers of quashing are not fettered by statutory non-compoundability under BNS if justice so requires and the parties have amicably settled.
- Emphasizes that the State’s opposition to quashing is not overriding when the complainant voluntarily seeks settlement and no grievous injury is involved.
- Lawyers may rely on this authority to seek quashing in similar factual scenarios, even after introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- The presence and voluntary endorsement of the complainant before Court strengthens the case for quashing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court expressly relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Dimpey Gujral v. UT of Chandigarh to confirm that High Courts retain inherent power to quash proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, where the continuation of such prosecution would not serve the interests of justice.
- The factual matrix here involved a personal dispute, non-grievous injuries, and a consensual settlement confirmed on affidavit and before the Court.
- The State’s objection was overruled, as the Supreme Court precedents allow the High Court to prioritize justice and parties’ settlement over statutory non-compoundability in fitting circumstances.
- The Court ascertained party voluntariness and the non-serious nature of the offence before quashing.
- The principles for exercise of quashing power are discretionary and fact-dependent, but settlement can provide compelling ground if the offence is not heinous or affecting societal interests.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of FIR on ground of mutual settlement between parties.
- Submitted compounding application supported by affidavits.
- Argued that injuries were not grievous and no useful purpose would be served by continued prosecution.
Respondent No.3 (Complainant)
- Personally appeared and confirmed desire to settle.
- Affirmed no coercion; no longer interested in pursuing proceedings.
- Stated injuries were not grievous.
State
- Opposed application, arguing offences involved are non-compoundable under BNS.
- Urged that statutory bar on compounding should be respected.
Factual Background
- The dispute between the petitioner and respondent (complainant) stemmed from a personal matter, resulting in registration of FIR No.43 of 2025 dated 25.10.2025 under Sections 115(1) & 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at P.S. Augustmuni, District Rudraprayag.
- Parties reached a voluntary settlement, and a Compounding Application, supported by affidavits of both sides, was filed.
- The complainant confirmed in Court that the dispute has been amicably resolved, injuries were not grievous, and expressed desire not to proceed.
- The State objected on the ground of statutory non-compoundability.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 115(1) & 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were the charging sections under which the FIR was lodged.
- The judgment confirms that statutory bar on compounding of certain offences under BNS does not preclude the High Court’s constitutional powers under Article 226 or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per Supreme Court precedent.
- No interpretation of the statutory provisions is undertaken beyond reaffirmation of inherent power to quash.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh, Dimpey Gujral) regarding quashing powers in compoundable and non-compoundable offences upon settlement.