Uttarakhand High Court
C528/307/2026 on 16 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1781
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/307/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy A.G. along
with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Kundan Singh, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been filed
seeking quashing of the charge-sheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
12.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District
Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1053
of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471
I.P.C., as well as the entire criminal
proceedings arising therefrom.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that the respondent no.2/complainant
lodged an F.I.R. on 10.08.2017 alleging that
forged royalty slips of his stone crusher were
being used. It is stated that on 09.08.2017 the
complainant received information that some
dumpers were using such forged slips.
Thereafter, he sent his worker to the spot
where the vehicles were standing, and the
alleged forged royalty slips were found. Upon
enquiry, the drivers allegedly stated that the
slips had been provided by the present
applicant and that the dumpers belonged to
the applicant’s brother; that, after completion
of investigation, the Investigating Officer
2026:UHC:1781
submitted the charge-sheet against the
applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
471 I.P.C., upon which the learned trial court
took cognizance and summoned the applicant
vide order dated 12.03.2018.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant would
further submit that during the pendency of
the proceedings, the parties have amicably
resolved their dispute and have entered into a
compromise. It is submitted that the dispute
was essentially personal in nature and arose
out of a misunderstanding between the
parties. In support thereof, a joint
compounding application along with affidavits
of the applicant and respondent no.2 has been
filed before this Court stating that the parties
have settled the matter amicably and that
respondent no.2 does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the applicant.
8. On the previous date of hearing i.e.
26.02.2026, both the applicant and
respondent no.2 were present in person before
this Court and were duly identified by their
respective counsel. This Court interacted with
the parties to verify the genuineness of the
compromise. Learned State counsel was also
directed to obtain instructions as to whether
any other criminal case of similar nature
involving the applicant is pending.
9. Learned State counsel, on instructions,
submits that no other case of similar nature
involving the applicant is pending. However,
he opposed the compounding application on
the ground that the offences under Sections
467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. are non-
compoundable offences under Section 320
Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, he does not dispute the
factum of compromise between the parties.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and has perused the material available on
2026:UHC:1781
record.
11. From the material brought on record, it
appears that the dispute between the parties
has arisen out of a private dispute relating to
the alleged use of forged royalty slips. The
parties are present before the Court and upon
interaction have unequivocally stated that
they have amicably resolved their dispute and
that the complainant does not wish to pursue
the criminal proceedings any further. A joint
compromise application supported by
affidavits of the parties has also been filed
affirming the said settlement.
12. It is true that the offences under
Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. are non-
compoundable offences. However, the law is
well settled that the High Court, in exercise of
its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
may quash criminal proceedings involving
non-compoundable offences where the dispute
is essentially private in nature and the parties
have amicably settled their differences,
provided that the continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of the Court.
13. 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
2026:UHC:1781
have resolved their differences and the
continuation of such proceedings would
amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court. Recently, in Ramgopal v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that even in cases involving non-
compoundable offences, the High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if the parties have
settled their dispute and the continuation of
proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
14. In the present case, the dispute appears
to be private in nature and does not involve
any element of public interest or grave societal
impact. The complainant himself has
voluntarily entered into a compromise with the
applicant and has categorically stated that he
does not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings. In such circumstances,
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would serve no useful purpose.
15. Accordingly, in view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgments, the compounding
application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) deserves to be
allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
12.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District
Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1053
of 2018 as well as the entire criminal
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed.
16. The present C-528 application is,
accordingly, allowed.
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(Alok Mahra J.)
16.03.2026
Mamta
2026:UHC:1781