Uttarakhand High Court
Mahesh Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 July, 2026
UKHC010196862025
2026:UHC:5775
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPCRL/1658/2025
Mahesh Kumar ........Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Shashikant Shandilya, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A.
along with Jai Prakash Kandpal, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. Ms. Nancy Singh, learned counsel for
respondent nos.3 & 4.
4. By means of the present criminal
writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks
issuance of a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the
Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0197 of 2025
registered under Sections 115(2), 140(3),
351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. at Police
Station Ranipur, District Haridwar.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the
impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by
respondent no. 4 alleging, inter alia, that
on 13.05.2025, the father-in-law of
respondent no. 4/informant returned
home and made a statement before the
police that he owned 12 bighas of
agricultural land and that there existed a
dispute with the petitioner in respect of
the said land. It is further alleged that on
09.05.2025, the petitioner, in connivance
UKHC010196862025
2026:UHC:5775
with certain unknown persons, had
kidnapped him in connection with the
aforesaid land dispute.
6. Learned counsel would submit that
the allegations contained in the impugned
F.I.R. are wholly false, frivolous and an
abuse of the process of law; that, in the
year 2010, the petitioner and respondent
no. 3 had entered into an agreement to
sell in respect of certain immovable
property, pursuant to which the
petitioner paid a substantial advance
consideration to respondent no. 3; that,
however, despite receipt of the advance
amount, respondent no. 3 neither
executed the sale deed in favour of the
petitioner nor refunded the amount
received; that, consequently, a civil
dispute arose between the parties
concerning the enforcement of the
agreement and recovery of the advance
consideration; that, with a view to exert
undue pressure upon the petitioner and
to avoid his civil liabilities arising out of
the said transaction, respondent no. 4
has lodged the present F.I.R. by giving a
purely civil dispute the colour of a
criminal offence.
7. Learned counsel would further
submit that, even if the allegations
contained in the impugned F.I.R. are
accepted in their entirety, no offence,
much less the offence alleged, is made
out against the petitioner. It is contended
that the prosecution story is inherently
improbable and stands falsified as the
agreement executed between the parties
on the very date of the alleged occurrence,
which completely contradict the allegation
of kidnapping and demonstrates that the
UKHC010196862025
2026:UHC:5775
criminal proceedings have been initiated
with an oblique motive.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
would further submit that, during the
pendency of the present writ petition, the
parties have amicably resolved all their
disputes. It is further submitted that a
Compounding Application being I.A. No. 1
of 2026, duly supported by separate
affidavits sworn by the petitioner as well
as respondent nos.3 & 4, have been filed.
In the said application, both parties have
categorically stated that they have
voluntarily and amicably settled all their
disputes without any coercion, undue
influence or pressure, and that they do
not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further, as the
continuation thereof would seriously
prejudice their peaceful matrimonial life.
9. Learned State Counsel vehemently
opposes the Compounding Application on
the ground that some of the offences
alleged against the petitioner are non-
compoundable offence. However, he does
not dispute the factual position regarding
the filing of the compromise application.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent nos.3 & 4 fairly submits
that the dispute between the parties has
been amicably resolved. He does not
dispute the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioner and states that
respondent nos.3 & 4 have no objection if
the impugned F.I.R. and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are
quashed in view of the amicable
settlement.
11. The petitioner as well as respondent
nos.3 & 4 are present before this Court
UKHC010196862025
2026:UHC:5775
though Video Conferencing and have
been duly identified by their respective
learned counsel. Upon interaction with
the Court, respondent nos.3 & 4 have
categorically stated that the dispute has
amicably settled between them and they
have no objection if the impugned F.I.R.
and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed. They have also
affirmed that the compromise has been
entered into voluntarily, of their own free
will, and without any coercion,
inducement or undue influence.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties, perused the material available on
record, and considered the Compounding
Application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) along with
the affidavits filed in support thereof, this
Court is satisfied that the parties have
voluntarily and amicably settled all their
inter se disputes. The petitioner and
respondent nos.3 & 4, who are present
before the Court and have been duly
identified by their respective learned
counsel, have unequivocally affirmed the
compromise, therefore, continuation of
the criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, and State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC
688, has authoritatively held that the
High Court, in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and its
inherent powers to secure the ends of
justice, may quash criminal proceedings
arising out of private and personal
UKHC010196862025
2026:UHC:5775
disputes where the parties have amicably
settled their differences and the
possibility of conviction is remote,
provided the offences are not heinous in
nature or such as have a serious impact
on society at large.
14. In the facts of the present case,
having regard to the nature of the
allegations contained in the impugned
F.I.R., the voluntary settlement arrived at
between the parties, the categorical
statement made by respondent no.3 & 4
before this Court affirming the
compromise, and the principles laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the
considered opinion that continuation of
the criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose and would amount to an
abuse of the process of law. The
compromise appears to be genuine,
voluntary and free from any element of
coercion or undue influence.
15. Accordingly, the Compounding
Application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) stands
allowed. Consequently, the First
Information Report being Case
Crime/F.I.R. No. 0197 of 2025 registered
at Police Station Ranipur, District
Haridwar, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby
quashed.
16. The criminal writ petition is,
accordingly, allowed.
17. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of accordingly.
MAM Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
(Alok Mahra, J.)
14.07.2026
TA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e
Mamta 584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebb
d642671329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabf
d54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a1
RANI
91648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.07.14 17:18:19 +05’30’
