Uttarakhand High Court
C528/379/2026 on 12 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1641
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C-528 No.379 of 2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Ankush Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Ms. Rajni Rangwal, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant.
4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 75 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74, 75(1)(i) of B.N.S. as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that initially an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the applicant alleging that on 23.10.2024 at about 1:30 p.m., when respondent no. 2/complainant was returning to her home from school, the applicant forced her to talk to him and, upon her refusal, started abusing and assaulting her, as a result of which respondent no. 2/complainant somehow managed to escape from the applicant. On the basis of the said F.I.R., the Investigating Officer, after completion of the investigation, submitted a chargesheet, upon which the learned trial court took cognizance.
2026:UHC:1641
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant and the complainant/respondent no. 2 have now amicably resolved their dispute and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. In support thereof, a joint compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2026), along with affidavits of the applicant and the complainant/respondent no.2, has been filed stating that the complainant do not wish to prosecute the applicant.
7. The applicant and respondent no. 2/complainant are present in person and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 stated that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and that she does not wish to pursue the matter any further. She has no objection if the aforesaid criminal proceedings are quashed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
8. Learned State Counsel opposes the application, on the ground that the allegations include the offences under Sections 74, 75(1)(i) and 351(2), which is non-compoundable in nature. However, does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties or the filing of the joint compounding application.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the dispute between the parties arises out of a private dispute relating to possession of property. The allegations made in the F.I.R./charge-sheet are essentially personal in nature and do not involve any element of serious or grave public interest. It is also not in dispute that 2026:UHC:1641 the parties have amicably settled their differences. Respondent no.2/complainant, who is present in person before this Court and duly identified by her counsel, has categorically stated that the dispute has been resolved and she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further against the applicants.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is empowered to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where the dispute is essentially of a private and personal nature and the parties have settled the matter amicably. The said principle has been reiterated in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings arising out of personal disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their differences and the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
11. Considering the nature of the allegations, the compromise arrived at between the parties, and the categorical statement of respondent no.2 that she does not wish to pursue the matter any further, this Court is of the considered view that no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings to continue and that the ends of justice would be met by quashing the same.
12. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. Consequently, the 2026:UHC:1641 present C-528 application also stands allowed. The charge-sheet, cognizance/ summoning order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 75 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74, 75(1)(i) of the B.N.S., pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 12.03.2026 Mamta MAM Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244 TA f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d 67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9c RANI abfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd2 6690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.03.13 16:59:29 +05'30'