Uttarakhand High Court
C528/82/2026 on 13 February, 2026
2026:UHC:923
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C528/82/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Balvinder Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for private respondent no.3.
4. Present C-528 application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned Chargsheet, cognizance/ summoning order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 6026 of 2021, as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the said case, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged alleging that on 13.09.2021, when the complainant along with his companions was having food at a restaurant, the applicants allegedly reached there and assaulted the complainant and his companions with sticks and sharp-edged weapons. It was further alleged that when the companions of the complainant intervened, applicant no.1 fired a gunshot from his licensed revolver towards the complainant; however, no firearm injury was sustained by any person. It is also alleged that respondent no.3 sustained simple injuries during the incident. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge- sheet under Sections 307, 323 and 506 I.P.C., and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 2026:UHC:923 against applicant no.1, and under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C. against applicant nos.2 to 4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 06.12.2021.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that the dispute between the parties arose out of a sudden altercation and personal enmity, and with the intervention of respectable persons of the locality, the matter has now been amicably settled. A joint compounding application supported by affidavits of the applicants as well as the complainant and injured persons has been filed before this Court, stating unequivocally that the dispute has been resolved and they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further.
7. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for quashing on the ground that the offences under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 are non- compoundable in nature under Section 320 Cr.P.C., being offences against the State. However, learned State counsel does not dispute the genuineness of the compromise entered into between the parties.
8. To this, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C. are not made out in the present case as no firearm was recovered from the possession of the applicants during investigation, no empty cartridge was seized, and admittedly no firearm injury was sustained by any of the injured persons. The medical reports disclose only simple injuries. Thus, the allegation under Section 307 I.P.C. appears to have been incorporated without sufficient material, and the dispute essentially remains personal in nature.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties 2026:UHC:923 and perused the record.
10. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 11. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non- compoundable offences where the dispute is essentially private and personal in nature and where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, provided that the offences are not heinous, serious, or of a nature that impacts society at large.
12. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, observing that the High Court must examine the nature and gravity of the offence, the impact on society, the antecedents of the accused, and whether the compromise is genuine and voluntary. It was further held that even in cases involving Section 307 I.P.C., the High Court may examine whether the charge has been framed merely for the sake of it or whether sufficient material exists to support the allegation of attempt to murder.
13. Further, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that while serious and heinous offences ordinarily should not be quashed on the basis of compromise, the High Court is empowered to examine whether incorporation of Section 2026:UHC:923 307 I.P.C. is justified on the basis of material collected during investigation. If the injuries are simple and the weapon allegedly used does not support the prosecution version, and the matter is predominantly of a private character, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.
14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature. No firearm injury has been reported. There is no recovery of firearm or empty cartridge to substantiate the allegation of firing. The dispute appears to have arisen out of a sudden altercation between the parties. The complainant and injured persons have categorically stated that they have no objection if the proceedings are quashed.
15. In view of the above facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute is essentially personal in nature and continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite the amicable settlement, would serve no useful purpose.
16. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. Consequently, the C- 528 application is allowed. The impugned chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 6026 of 2021, as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 13.02.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:923