[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/600/2026 on 7 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2429
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/600/2026
With
C528/611/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Chandra Prakash, learned
counsel for the applicants in C-528
No.600 of 2026.
2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy
A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned
A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Rajneesh Chauhan, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 respondent
no. C-528 No.600 of 2026.
4. Since the parties involved, the nature
of the dispute, the factual matrix as well
as the questions of law involved in both
the C-528 applications are identical, both
the matters are being heard together and
are being decided by this common
judgment.
5. The C-528 No.600 of 2026 has been
filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet
as well as the cognizance/summoning
order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag
in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2025 (Criminal
Case No.506 of 2025), arising out of Case
Crime No.36 of 2025, for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 115(2),
118(1), 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S. pending
in the Court of learned District and
Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag.
6. The C-528 No.611 of 2026 has been
filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet
as well as the cognizance/summoning
order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the
learned Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST
Act), Rudraprayag in Special Sessions
Trial No.18 of 2025 (arising out of F.I.R.
No.37 of 2025) for the offences punishable
under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) and
2026:UHC:2429
352 of B.N.S., and Section 3(1)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
pending before the Court of learned
Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act),
Rudraprayag, along with the entire
criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that on 01.09.2024 at about
10:00 P.M., an altercation took place
between the parties, pursuant to which
both sides lodged F.I.Rs. against each
other. It is further submitted that during
the said altercation, both parties
sustained injuries and the criminal cases
arose out of the same incident.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that the applicants and
the respondents/complainant have now
amicably resolved their dispute and do not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
any further. In support thereof, joint
compounding applications (I.A. No.1 of
2026 in both the matters), supported by
affidavits of the applicants as well as the
respondents/complainant, have been filed
stating that the dispute between the
parties has been amicably settled and the
complainant does not intend to prosecute
the applicants.
9. The applicants as well as the
respondents/complainant are present in
person before this Court and have been
duly identified by their respective counsel.
Upon interaction with the Court, the
respondents/complainant have stated that
the dispute between the parties has been
amicably settled and they do not wish to
pursue the criminal proceedings any
further.
10. Learned State Counsel would oppose
the applications on the ground that some
of the offences alleged in the F.I.Rs. are
non-compoundable in nature. However, he
does not dispute the factum of
2026:UHC:2429
compromise between the parties or the
filing of the joint compounding
applications.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
12. From the material brought on record,
it transpires that the dispute between the
applicants and the
respondents/complainant has been
amicably settled. The joint compounding
applications, duly supported by affidavits
of both parties, indicate that the
compromise has been entered into
voluntarily and without any coercion. The
respondents/complainant have also
reiterated before this Court that they have
settled the dispute with the applicants and
do not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further.
13 It is true that some of the offences
alleged are non-compoundable. However,
it is well settled that in appropriate cases,
where the parties have amicably resolved
their dispute and the continuation of
criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose, the High Court may
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the proceedings in
order to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
14. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab,
(2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh
vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
High Court, in exercise of its inherent
powers, may quash criminal proceedings
on the basis of a compromise between the
parties even in respect of non-
compoundable offences, where the dispute
is essentially of a private nature and the
compromise appears to be genuine and
voluntary.
15. In the present case, considering the
2026:UHC:2429
nature of the allegations, the fact that the
parties have amicably resolved their
dispute and that the complainant herself
does not wish to prosecute the applicants
any further, this Court is satisfied that the
compromise entered into between the
parties is genuine and voluntary, and that
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would be an exercise in futility.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, as well as the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
this Court finds it to be a fit case for
exercising its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of
justice.
17. Accordingly, the compounding
applications are allowed. The charge-sheet
as well as the cognizance/summoning
order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag
in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2025 (Criminal
Case No.506 of 2025), arising out of Case
Crime No.36 of 2025, for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 115(2),
118(1), 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S., pending
in the Court of learned District and
Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, are hereby
quashed.
18. Further, the charge-sheet as well as
the cognizance/summoning order dated
12.12.2025 passed by the learned Special
Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), Rudraprayag
in Special Sessions Trial No.18 of 2025
(arising out of F.I.R. No.37 of 2025) for the
offences punishable under Sections
115(2), 118(1), 351(2) and 352 of B.N.S.
and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending before the
Court of learned Special Sessions Judge
(SC/ST Act), Rudraprayag, along with the
entire criminal proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the
applicants.
2026:UHC:2429
19. The present C-528 applications
stand allowed accordingly.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra J.)
07.04.2026
Mamta
