Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1093/2026 on 22 May, 2026
2026:UHC:4028
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/1093/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Suraiya
Naaz, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Ms. Anmol Sandhu, learned counsel
for respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the charge-
sheet, cognizance/summoning order
dated 15.04.2025 along with entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 358 of
2025 under Sections 376, 354, 354-C,
354-D, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67-A
of Information Technology Act.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged
by the complainant alleging therein that
the applicants having some personal
photo and video with him and the
applicant is threatening to viral these
photos/videos and he used to harass the
complainant/respondent no.2 to defame
her and also send the obscene video and
photo to her; that, upon completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
filed a chargesheet against the present
applicant. He would further submit that
a bare perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal
that there are no specific allegations of
2026:UHC:4028
sexual assault committed by the
applicant against the complainant. At
best, the allegation is that the applicant
allegedly attempted to sexually exploit
the complainant on the basis of certain
photographs and videos; that, even in
the chargesheet, no material has been
brought on record to substantiate the
commission of any offence of rape.
Therefore, no offence under Section 376
I.P.C. is made out against the applicant.
6. Learned counsel would further
submit that, with the intervention of
respectable members of society, the
parties have amicably resolved their
dispute. In this regard, a joint
compounding application, being I.A. No.
1 of 2026, duly supported by affidavits of
both the applicants and respondents,
has been filed before this Court. The
application records that the compromise
has been entered into voluntarily, out of
free will, and without any coercion,
pressure, or undue influence.
Respondent no.2 has unequivocally
stated that she does not wish to pursue
the criminal proceedings against the
applicant.
7. Applicant and respondent no.2 are
present in person before this Court and
have been duly identified by their
respective learned counsel. Upon
interaction with respondent no.2, she
affirmed the factum of compromise and
reiterated that the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties.
8. Learned State counsel opposed the
2026:UHC:4028
compounding application; however, he
did not dispute the factum of
compromise entered into between the
parties and fairly admitted that the F.I.R.
does not contain any allegation of sexual
assault against the applicant.
9. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. From the material brought on
record as well as the statements made
before this Court, it transpires that the
dispute between the parties arose out of
personal discord and the same is
essentially private in nature. The
compromise entered into between the
parties appears to be genuine, voluntary
and free from any coercion or undue
influence.
11. It is well settled that even in respect
of non-compoundable offences, the High
Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C./Section 528 B.N.S.S., can quash
criminal proceedings where the dispute
is predominantly private in nature and
continuance of such proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of the
Court. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
criminal proceedings involving offences
of personal nature may be quashed
where the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and the ends of justice so
require. Similar principles have been
reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of
2026:UHC:4028
Gujarat, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has laid down the parameters governing
exercise of inherent powers for quashing
proceedings on the basis of compromise.
12. Considering the nature of
allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the
amicable settlement arrived at between
the parties and the categorical stand
taken by respondent no. 2 that she does
not wish to prosecute the matter further,
this Court is of the considered opinion
that continuance of the criminal
proceedings would serve no fruitful
purpose and the same would amount to
abuse of the process of law.
13. Accordingly, the compounding
application being I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is
allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
15.04.2025 along with entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 358 of
2025 are hereby quashed qua the
applicant.
14. The present C-528 application is,
accordingly, allowed.
15. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
22.05.2026
MA
Mamta
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b
, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.05.26 11:17:51
+05’30’
2026:UHC:4028
