C528/379/2026 on 12 March, 2026

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.

SPONSORED

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’