C482/482/2023

Uttarakhand High Court

C482/482/2023 on 24 February, 2026

                                                                  2026:UHC:1239
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               C-482 No.343 of 2023
                               With
                               C-482 No.136 of 2023
                               With
                               C-482 No.482 of 2023


                               Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Ms. Mamta Arya along with Mr. Rakshit Joshi and Mr. Bhpendra Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant in C-

Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant in C-482 No.136 of 2023 and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel for the applicant in C-482 No.482 of 2023.

2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy A.G. for the State.

3. Mr. Nandan Arya, proxy counsel for Mr. Mahesh Singh Dhapola, for respondent no.2 in C-482 No.343 of 2023.

4. Present applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred by the applicants seeking quashing of the charge-sheets, cognizance/summoning orders as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2407 of 2022 and Criminal Case No. 2541 of 2022, arising out of F.I.R. No. 68 of 2021 and F.I.R. No. 69 of 2021, respectively, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, District Nainital.

5. Since the aforesaid cases arise out of the same incident, involve identical questions of fact and law, and are in the nature of cross-F.I.Rs. lodged by the parties against each other, the same are 2026:UHC:1239 being heard together and are being decided by this common order.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties emanates from a property-related issue and an altercation which took place between them. It is contended that the dispute is essentially civil in nature but has been given a criminal colour. It is further submitted that with the intervention of respectable persons of the society, the parties have amicably settled their dispute. A joint compounding application supported by affidavits of the applicants as well as the private respondents has been filed on record, wherein it has been specifically averred that the parties have resolved their differences voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence, and that the respondents do not wish to prosecute the applicants any further.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the factum of compromise and affirms that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the applications on the ground that some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature. However, he does not dispute that the cases are cross-cases arising out of the same transaction nor does he dispute the compromise entered into between the parties.

9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record.

10. From the record, it transpires that 2026:UHC:1239 both the F.I.Rs. were lodged by the parties against each other. The allegations are personal in nature and do not have any impact on society at large. The compromise application is supported by duly sworn affidavits of the parties, and there is nothing on record to indicate that the settlement is not genuine.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court can quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the dispute is essentially of a private and personal nature and the parties have amicably settled the matter, provided the offences do not involve heinous or serious crimes having societal impact. Further, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise and held that criminal cases having overwhelmingly civil flavour, particularly those arising out of matrimonial, commercial, financial, partnership or similar transactions, may be quashed when parties have resolved their entire dispute. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence and whether the dispute is private in character.

12. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that The cases are 2026:UHC:1239 cross-cases arising out of the same incident. The dispute is primarily personal and emanates from related altercation and the compromise between the parties appears to be voluntary and genuine. The offences alleged do not fall in the category of heinous and serious offences affecting society at large. Continuation of the criminal proceedings, in view of the settlement, would not serve any fruitful purpose.

13. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

14. Accordingly, the present C-482 applications are allowed. The charge- sheets, cognizance/summoning orders as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2407 of 2022 and Criminal Case No. 2541 of 2022, arising out of F.I.R. No. 68 of 2021 and F.I.R. No. 69 of 2021, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, District Nainital, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.

15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 24.02.2026 Mamta