Uttarakhand High Court
C528/422/2026 on 16 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1770
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/422/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, learned
counsel for the applicants.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Ms. Suraiya Naaz, learned counsel
for private respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet
and the cognizance/summoning order
dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Case
Crime No.2992 of 2025, arising out of
offences under Sections 307, 120-B, 148,
427, 504, 506 & 34 IPC, along with the
entire criminal proceedings, on the basis
of a compromise arrived at between the
parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged
by respondent no.2/complainant on
13.09.2023 alleging that on 12.09.2023,
when he along with his friend was going
somewhere, about 10-15 persons, whom
he could identify from the front,
intercepted them. It was alleged that some
of the persons fired about five shots,
which hit the glass of the car and the
glass broke. On the basis of the said
allegations, the F.I.R. was registered and
after completion of investigation the
Investigating Officer submitted the charge-
2026:UHC:1770
sheet, upon which the learned Magistrate
took cognizance.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants
would further submit that the applicants
are students and they were not named in
the F.I.R. It is submitted that although the
F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 307 and
427 IPC and the charge-sheet has been
filed under the said provisions, however,
no firearm or empty cartridges were
recovered from the possession of the
applicants, nor did the complainant or any
other person receive any firearm injury. It
is also submitted that there are no specific
allegations against the applicants and
therefore the offence under Section 307
IPC is not made out against them.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants
also submits that the applicants and
respondent no.2/complainant have now
amicably settled the dispute. A
compounding application along with
affidavits of the applicants and respondent
no.2 has been filed before this Court. The
applicants and respondent no.2 are
present in Court and have been duly
identified by their respective counsel.
Upon interaction, respondent
no.2/complainant submits that the
dispute has been settled amicably and he
does not wish to prosecute the applicants
further, and the compromise has been
entered without any coercion, therefore,
the criminal proceedings be quashed.
8. Learned State counsel would oppose
the application and submitted that the
offences under Sections 307, 148, 34 and
120-B IPC are non-compoundable
2026:UHC:1770
offences. However, the factum of
compromise between the parties is not
disputed.
9. This Court has considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record. The offences alleged in the
present case are under Sections 307, 427,
34, 148, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC. Though
some of these offences are non-
compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.,
the dispute between the parties appears to
be personal in nature and the parties have
now amicably settled the matter.
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. In the present case, the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the
complainant has clearly stated before this
Court that he does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the
applicants. In view of the compromise
2026:UHC:1770
arrived at between the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no useful
purpose.
12. Accordingly, the compounding
application is allowed. Consequently, the
present C-528 application is also allowed.
The charge-sheet and cognizance/
summoning order dated 08.05.2025
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st, Dehradun in Case Crime No.2992 of
2025 along with the entire criminal
proceedings, are hereby quashed qua the
applicants in terms of the compromise
arrived at between the parties.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
16.03.2026
Mamta
