Uttarakhand High Court
C528/310/2026 on 26 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1381
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/310/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Mohit Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been filed to quash the chargesheet, summoning/cognizance order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Special Session Trial No.200 of 2025 by learned Additional District and Session Judge/F.T.S.C. Roorkee, District Haridwar as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C.; however, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet incorporating Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is contended that the learned trial court, while taking cognizance, has summoned the applicant under Sections 354 and 506 I.P.C. as well as Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. He would further submit that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the material collected during investigation and the contents of the charge-sheet would clearly 2026:UHC:1381 demonstrate that the essential ingredients of Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act are not attracted against the present applicant.
6. He would further submit that now the applicants and respondent no.2/victim are amicably settled the dispute, therefore, respondent no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicant further. In support thereof a compounding application along with affidavit of the applicants and respondent no.2 has been filed with the averment that the criminal proceedings be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
7. The applicant and respondent no.2/complainant are present in person before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent no.2/ complainant would submit that now the dispute has amicably settled, therefore, she does not wish to prosecute the applicant any further.
8. Learned State Counsel would oppose the application on the ground that the allegations pertain to serious and non-compoundable offences. However, he does not dispute the filing of the compromise application.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The law regarding exercise of inherent powers for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2026:UHC:1381 (2014) 6 SCC 466; and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641. It has been held that while heinous and serious offences having impact on society at large ordinarily should not be quashed on the basis of compromise, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, may quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and defeat the ends of justice.
11. In the present case, although the applicant has been summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, a careful and bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the charge- sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, would reveal that the essential and foundational ingredients constituting the offence of "sexual assault" as defined under Section 7 of the Act are conspicuously absent. There is no specific l allegation indicating any act of physical contact with sexual intent, which is a sine qua non for attracting Section 7 of the POCSO Act. In the absence of such foundational facts, the very substratum of the prosecution case under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act collapses.
12. It is further submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, thus, 2026:UHC:1381 continuation of the criminal proceedings, would serve no fruitful purpose.
13. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove regarding exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered opinion that the present matter is a fit case for invoking its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, interference is warranted.
14. Accordingly, the charge-sheet, summoning/cognizance order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Special Session Trial No.200 of 2025 by learned Additional District and Session Judge/F.T.S.C. Roorkee, District Haridwar as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
15. The C-528 application stands allowed.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
MAM Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, (Alok Mahra J.) 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2 TA 44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0 9a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9 RANI 26.02.2026 cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66d d26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef 0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.02.27 19:32:34 Mamta +05'30'