[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Mohd. Zubair on 13 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1687
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/358/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Deepak Joshi, learned counsel
for the applicants.
2. Mr. Mr. S.C. Dumka and Mr.
Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3. Mr. Pankaj Binwal, learned counsel
for respondent no.2/complainant.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings of Criminal Case
No. 2063 of 2022, State vs. Mohd. Zubair
and Others, under Sections 379 and 411
I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haldwani, District Nainital, on the basis
of compromise arrived at between the
parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that initially an F.I.R. was
lodged by respondent no.2 against the
applicants alleging therein that the
applicants had stolen two iron
advertising frames. After completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a charge-sheet against the
applicants, on which the learned trial
court took cognizance and passed the
summoning order dated 26.05.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants
2026:UHC:1687
would further submit that the applicants
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
(I.A. No. 1 of 2026), along with affidavits
of the applicants and the
complainant/respondent no.2, has been
filed stating that the complainant does
not wish to prosecute the applicants.
7. The applicants 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 the applicants have
compensated for the alleged loss;
therefore, he does not wish to pursue the
matter any further. He 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; however, he 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. The allegations made in
the F.I.R./charge-sheet are essentially
personal in nature and do not involve
2026:UHC:1687
any element of serious or grave public
interest. It is also not in dispute that the
parties have amicably settled their
differences. Respondent
no.2/complainant, who is present in
person before this Court and duly
identified by his counsel, has
categorically stated that the dispute has
been resolved and he 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 he
does not wish to pursue the matter any
2026:UHC:1687
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 present C-528
application stands allowed. The charge-
sheet, cognizance/summoning order
passed in Criminal Case No. 2063 of
2022, State vs. Mohd. Zubair and Others,
under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C.,
pending in the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haldwani, District Nainital, as well as
the entire criminal proceedings of the
aforesaid case, are hereby quashed qua
the applicants on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the
parties.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
MAMTA
RANI (Alok Mahra, J.)
13.03.2026
Mamta DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.03.17 10:32:52 +05'30'
