[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/478/2026 on 25 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2162
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/478/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along
with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Gaurav Paliwal, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 & 3.
4. Present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of
the charge-sheet as well as the
cognizance/summoning order dated
12.08.2024 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Doiwala,
of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of
2023, for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C.,
along with the entire criminal proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that an F.I.R. was lodged by
respondent no.2/complainant alleging
therein that the applicant, while driving his
car in a rash and negligent manner, struck
the daughter of respondent no.2, namely
respondent no.3 herein, who was returning
home after attending her tuition. It is further
submitted that the matter was investigated
by the Investigating Officer and, upon
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet
was submitted against the applicant, on the
2026:UHC:2162
basis of which the learned trial court took
cognizance and summoned the applicant to
face trial for the aforesaid offences.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the applicant and
respondent nos.2 and 3 have now amicably
settled their dispute and the complainants
do not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further. In this regard, a
joint compounding application (I.A. No.1 of
2026), duly supported by the affidavits of the
applicant as well as respondent nos.2 and 3,
has been filed before this Court stating that
the parties have resolved their dispute
amicably and the complainants have no
objection if the criminal proceedings against
the applicant are quashed.
7. The applicant as well as respondent
no.2 are present in person before the Court
and respondent no.3 is present through
Video Conferencing and they have been duly
identified by their respective counsel. Upon
interaction with the Court, respondent nos.2
and 3 have categorically stated that the
dispute between the parties has been
amicably settled and that they do not wish to
pursue the criminal proceedings against the
applicant any further.
8. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application on the ground that the offences
alleged include Sections 279 and 304-A
I.P.C., which are non-compoundable in
nature. However, he does not dispute the
factum of compromise arrived at between the
parties or the filing of the joint compounding
application before this Court.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
2026:UHC:2162
record.
10. From the material placed on record, it
transpires that the dispute between the
parties arose out of a road accident allegedly
caused due to rash and negligent driving of
the applicant. The parties have now
amicably resolved their dispute. A joint
compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026),
supported by their respective affidavits, has
also been filed before this Court, wherein
respondent nos.2 and 3 have categorically
stated that they do not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the applicant.
11. Although the offences under Sections
279 and 304-A I.P.C. are non-
compoundable, it is well settled that the
High Court, in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may
quash criminal proceedings in appropriate
cases in order to secure the ends of justice
or to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court, even in respect of non-compoundable
offences, if the Court is satisfied that the
compromise between the parties is genuine
and continuation of the proceedings would
serve no useful purpose.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
303 and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that criminal
proceedings involving offences having
overwhelmingly civil or personal flavour may
be quashed on the basis of compromise
between the parties, even if such offences
are non-compoundable, provided the Court
is satisfied that the compromise is genuine
and continuation of the proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of law.
13. In the present case, this Court is
2026:UHC:2162
satisfied that the compromise arrived at
between the parties is voluntary, genuine
and without any coercion. The complainant
and the injured have appeared before the
Court and have categorically stated that they
do not wish to prosecute the applicant any
further.
14. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, as well as the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this
Court is of the view that continuation of the
criminal proceedings would serve no useful
purpose and that this is a fit case to exercise
the inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. in order to secure the ends of justice.
15. Accordingly, the compounding
application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) is allowed.
Consequently, the charge-sheet as well as
the cognizance/summoning order dated
12.08.2024 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Doiwala,
District Dehradun in Criminal Case No.462
of 2024, for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C.,
along with the entire criminal proceedings
arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua
the applicants.
16. The present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
MAM
TA
f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d
(Alok Mahra J.)
67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9c
RANI
abfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd2
6690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.03.31 10:33:11
25.03.2026
Mamta +05'30'
