Uttarakhand High Court
Sushant Mandal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 July, 2026
UKHC010100042026
2026:UHC:5795
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPCRL/1072/2026
Sushant Mandal And Ors ......Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others
.......Respondents
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Suraiya
Naaz, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Vivek Sanguri, 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 petitioners seek
issuance of a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the
Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0067 of 2026 dated
04.05.2026 registered under Sections
109, 115(2) and 191 (2) of the B.N.S. at
Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that the
impugned F.I.R. has been lodged alleging,
inter alia, that during a marriage
ceremony, petitioner no.2 entered into an
altercation with respondent no.4 on the
dance floor and, thereafter, when
respondent no.4 came outside the venue,
UKHC010100042026
2026:UHC:5795
the petitioners allegedly assaulted him
with sticks, tiles and sharp-edged
weapons, causing injuries on his head
and other parts of the body.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the incident in
question arose out of a sudden altercation
during a marriage function and that,
during the pendency of the present writ
petition, the parties have amicably settled
their disputes. It is contended that no
useful purpose would be served by
permitting the criminal proceedings to
continue in view of the settlement arrived
at between the parties.
7. It is further submitted that a
Compounding Application, being I.A. No. 1
of 2026, duly supported by separate
affidavits sworn by the petitioners as well
as respondent nos.3 and 4, has been filed
before this Court. In the said application,
the parties have categorically stated that
they have voluntarily resolved all their
disputes and differences without any
coercion, pressure or undue influence and
that they do not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings any further.
8. Learned State Counsel would oppose
the prayer for quashing. However, he does
not dispute the factum of filing of the
compromise application nor the presence
of the parties before this Court.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent nos.3 and 4 fairly submits
that the dispute between the parties has
been amicably resolved and that
respondent nos.3 and 4 have no objection
if the impugned F.I.R. and all
consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed in view of the
compromise arrived at between the
UKHC010100042026
2026:UHC:5795
parties.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that petitioner no.1 is
present in person before the Court,
whereas petitioner nos.2 to 5, who are
presently languishing in Sub-Jail,
Haldwani, District Nainital, have joined
the proceedings through Video
Conferencing.
11. Petitioner no.1 is present in person
before the Court. Petitioner nos.2 to 5 are
present through Video Conferencing from
Sub-Jail, Haldwani, District Nainital.
Respondent nos.3 and 4 are also present
in person and have been duly identified by
their respective learned counsel.
12. Upon interaction with the Court,
respondent no.4, the injured person,
stated that he does not wish to pursue the
matter any further. He further stated that
the incident occurred during a marriage
function where, due to overcrowding on
the dance platform, he accidentally fell
and sustained injuries on his head after
coming into contact with a sharp edge of
the stage. He further stated that he has
no grievance against the petitioners and
has no objection if the impugned F.I.R.
and all consequential proceedings are
quashed.
13. Respondent no.3, the informant, also
stated before the Court that the F.I.R.
came to be lodged due to a
misunderstanding and that the dispute
has now been amicably resolved. Both
respondent nos.3 and 4 have
unequivocally stated that they have
entered into the compromise voluntarily,
of their own free will and without any
coercion, inducement or undue influence.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties
UKHC010100042026
2026:UHC:5795
and perused the material available on
record. The parties, who are present
before the Court, have affirmed the terms
of settlement and have expressed their
desire to bring the litigation to an end.
15. The legal position governing the
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for
quashing criminal proceedings on the
basis of compromise is no longer res
integra. 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, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the High
Court may, in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and inherent
jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice,
quash criminal proceedings arising out of
personal or private disputes where the
parties have amicably settled their
differences and where continuation of the
proceedings would amount to an abuse of
the process of law, provided that the
offences are not of a heinous nature or
such as have a serious impact upon
society at large.
16. In the present case, the dispute
arises out of an incident which appears to
be personal in nature. The injured as well
as the informant have appeared before
this Court and have categorically stated
that they have settled their disputes with
the petitioners and do not wish to
prosecute the matter any further. The
compromise entered into between the
parties appears to be genuine, voluntary
and free from any coercion or undue
influence. In the peculiar facts and
UKHC010100042026
2026:UHC:5795
circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the considered view that the possibility of
securing a conviction is remote and bleak
and that continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no useful
purpose.
17. Accordingly, the Compounding
Application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) is allowed.
18. Consequently, the F.I.R./Case Crime
No. 0067 of 2026 dated 04.05.2026,
registered at Police Station Dineshpur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, along with
all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, is hereby quashed.
18. It is stated that petitioner nos.2 to 5
are presently in judicial custody in
connection with the aforesaid case. In
view of the quashing of the impugned
F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings,
they shall be released forthwith, if their
custody is not required in connection with
any other case.
19. The criminal writ petition is
accordingly allowed.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
MA (Alok Mahra, J.) Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH 14.07.2026 Mamta COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900b
f09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b
66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd
004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.07.14 17:19:49
+05’30’
