Affirming Supreme Court Rulings in B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh, HC Reaffirms Inherent Power Under Article 226 to Quash Criminal Proceedings Arising from BNS Act 2023, Binding on Subordinate Courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCRL/699/2025 of MAHENDRA SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010098982025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents (B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a High Court can quash an FIR under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 on the basis of a compromise between the parties, despite some offences being non-compoundable, by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court’s power to quash an FIR or criminal proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction (Article 226) is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 CrPC. Even non-compoundable offences may be quashed if:
The ends of justice and prevention of oppression guide the exercise of this power, in line with B.S. Joshi (2003) and Gian Singh (2013). |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court treated inherent jurisdiction as plenary and unconstrained by Section 320 CrPC, relying on guidelines from B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh regarding ends of justice and abuse of process. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners challenged FIR No. 0157/2025 (Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS Act 2023) registered at PS Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Joint compounding applications and affidavits filed; complainant (respondent No.3) returned disputed amount and no longer objected. State raised objection as some offences were non-compoundable. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that High Courts may quash FIRs under non-compoundable offences of a special statute (BNS Act 2023) when parties fully compromise and ends of justice are served.
- Reaffirms that inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 transcends Section 320 CrPC limitations.
- Endorses a two-part test: remote/bleak conviction probability and prevention of abuse of process or extreme injustice.
- Introduces cost imposition (₹20,000) as a deterrent against frivolous or “dare-devil” offences.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to support quashing applications even for non-compoundable offences, subject to proper settlement and court’s satisfaction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Petitioners filed criminal writ petitions challenging FIR No.0157/2025 and submitted joint compounding applications supported by affidavits; complainant confirmed amicable settlement and no objection.
- State’s preliminary objection: some offences under BNS Act 2023 are non-compoundable as per Section 320 CrPC.
- Citing B.S. Joshi (2003), court held inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 is distinct and not curtailed by Section 320 CrPC when ends of justice require quashing.
- Applying Gian Singh (2013) guidelines, court assessed whether:
- Possibility of conviction is remote or bleak due to full settlement;
- Continuation would amount to abuse of process or cause extreme injustice.
- Finding both criteria satisfied, court held quashing appropriate to secure ends of justice.
- FIR quashed qua petitioners subject to ₹20,000 cost, and all proceedings stood terminated.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Dispute fully settled; disputed amount returned.
- Continuation of prosecution would be abuse of process.
- One petitioner falsely implicated by virtue of relation to co-accused.
State (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2)
- Some alleged offences under BNS Act 2023 are non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC.
Complainant (Respondent No. 3)
- No objection to quashing; settlement voluntary and without coercion.
Factual Background
Petitioners Nipendra Kumar and Mahendra Singh faced an FIR No. 0157/2025 under various sections of the BNS Act 2023 registered at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. They filed criminal writ petitions along with joint compounding applications, stating an amicable settlement and return of the disputed amount. The complainant (respondent No. 3) confirmed no desire to prosecute further. The State objected, citing non-compoundability of certain offences. The High Court heard arguments and examined Supreme Court precedents before quashing the FIR.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of the BNS Act 2023 invoked in FIR.
- Section 320 CrPC (compounding) held not to limit High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Article 226.
- Article 226 empowers High Courts to quash criminal proceedings to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.
Procedural Innovations
- Use of inherent jurisdiction to quash FIR under a special statute beyond Section 320 CrPC.
- Imposition of a conditional cost (₹20,000) to deter frivolous criminal complaints after settlement.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7222
- (2003) 4 SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi & ors. v. State of Haryana)
- (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab)