The Uttarakhand High Court reaffirms that FIRs, including those involving allegations of grievous hurt under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), can be quashed if parties have genuinely settled their dispute and wish to restore harmony. The judgment applies binding Supreme Court precedent (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) and provides clear authority for lawyers seeking quashing on the basis of compromise in private disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCRL/1261/2025 of BICHITAR SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010162542025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Uttarakhand; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent — Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Quashing of FIR/Compounding under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIRs allege offences including grievous hurt under BNS can be quashed on the basis of compromise. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that where a dispute between private parties has been amicably settled, criminal proceedings can be quashed even if the FIR discloses grievous hurt. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court focused on the restoration of peace and harmony between parties and the voluntary nature of the compromise. The opposition by the State is not decisive where the complainant and injured party do not wish to proceed, and the offence is primarily private in nature. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedent holding that in appropriate cases, criminal proceedings may be quashed post-settlement to promote peace and justice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Dispute pertained to boundaries of agricultural land, leading to a fight and allegations of physical assault. FIR was lodged by the wife of the injured, based on information from family children. Parties appeared in Court, confirmed compromise, and sought quashing. State opposed on grounds of injury nature, but both complainant and injured supported settlement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court (where applicable) |
| Follows | Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms ability of High Courts to quash FIRs involving grievous hurt under BNS if the dispute is private and parties have settled.
- The State’s opposition is not conclusive if both complainant and injured person support the compromise.
- Compromise supported by affidavits and in-person appearance of parties is strongly considered.
- The judgment relies on Supreme Court precedent (Gian Singh), confirming its continuing authority under the new BNS regime.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first verified the genuineness of the compromise through affidavits, in-person appearance, and identification of parties.
- Both complainant and injured party stated, before the Court, that they did not wish to continue with prosecution.
- The State objected, citing the grievous nature of injuries, but the Court noted the dispute to be of personal and private character (regarding land boundary).
- The Court applied Supreme Court precedent from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), which allows quashing of criminal proceedings if parties have amicably settled and where the offence is not of a type affecting society at large.
- The judgment emphasizes harmony, peace, and the parties’ wishes as determinative, rather than blanket State opposition.
- The FIR was accordingly quashed and the petition disposed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The dispute was between private parties concerning agricultural land boundaries.
- The matter has been amicably settled; all parties signed compromise affidavits.
- Continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 (Complainant & Injured):
- Complainant’s understanding of events was based on information relayed by children.
- Both support the compromise and do not wish to pursue criminal action any further.
State:
- Opposed compounding application on the ground that the injured sustained grievous injuries.
- Asserted the matter should not be compounded.
Factual Background
The dispute arose between the petitioners and respondent no.5 regarding boundaries of agricultural land, resulting in a physical altercation. The wife of respondent no.5 lodged an FIR (No.254 of 2025 dated 11.08.2025) under sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(3), and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, based on information from family children. During the pendency of proceedings, all parties entered into a compromise, deposed affidavits to that effect, and sought quashing of the FIR; the State opposed due to the nature of injuries alleged.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(3), and 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were invoked in the FIR.
- The Court referenced the principles applicable to quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution in criminal matters following settlement, relying on the interpretation laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.
- No explicit statutory “reading down” or “reading in” was conducted; the analysis focused on established precedents permitting quashing for private offences post-settlement.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedent or innovations were set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.