Uttarakhand High Court
C528/429/2026 on 16 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2726
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
No.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Registrar's order with
Signatures
C528/429/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Soniya Chawla, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy
A.G. for the State.
3. Mr. Harish Bisht, learned counsel for
respondent no.2/complainant.
4. Present C-528 application has been
preferred seeking quashing of the charge-
sheet as well as the entire proceedings of
Special Sessions Trial No. 581 of 2021,
pending in the Court of learned Addl.
Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Rudrapur, Udham
Singh Nagar for the offence punishable
Sections 354, 504, 506 & 509 I.P.C. and
Sections 9/10 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that respondent no. 2, who
is the father of the victim, had lodged an
F.I.R. alleging therewith that his minor
daughter was stopped by the applicant
when she was coming from the school on
12.10.2021 at 2.00 p.m. and threatened
her that he will ruin her family and
frightened by such a threat, his daughter,
after being harassed by the applicant,
came home and cut the vein of her left
hand. Upon completion of investigation,
the Investigating Officer submitted a
charge-sheet against the present
applicant, on the basis of which the
learned trial court proceeded to take
cognizance and summon the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated
in the present case as the applicant and
the daughter of the complainant are of the
same age group and fell in love with each
2026:UHC:2726
other but the complainant was not agree
with their relationship; that, the applicant
tried very hard to console him for the
marriage of the applicant and the daughter
of the complainant but he refused for the
marriage.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the applicant
and respondent no. 2/ complainant has
now amicably resolved their dispute and
have decided not to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further. In support
thereof, a joint compounding application
has been filed, duly supported by affidavits
of the applicant as well as respondent no.
2, wherein it has been categorically stated
that the matter has been settled
voluntarily and that they have no objection
to the quashing of the proceedings.
8. The applicant as well as respondent
no. 2 are present in person before this
Court and have been duly identified by
their respective counsel. Upon interaction
with the Court, respondent no. 2 has
affirmed the factum of compromise and
has stated in unequivocal terms that the
same has been entered into out of his own
free will, without any coercion, undue
influence or pressure, and that he does
not wish to prosecute the applicant any
further.
9. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application on the ground that the
allegations pertain to serious and heinous
offences, which are non-compoundable in
nature, particularly those under the
POCSO Act. However, he fairly does not
dispute the factum of compromise between
the parties or the filing of the joint
compounding application supported by
their affidavits.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
2026:UHC:2726
11. The complainant is present before
this Court and has categorically stated
that he does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings any further. This
Court is satisfied that the compromise
arrived at between the parties is voluntary,
genuine and free from any coercion or
undue influence.
12. It is true that the offences alleged in
the present case, particularly those under
the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, are non-
compoundable in nature and ordinarily
such offences are treated as offences
against society. The Court is, therefore,
required to exercise greater caution while
considering a prayer for quashing on the
basis of compromise.
13. However, it is equally well settled that
the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is
not precluded from quashing criminal
proceedings involving non-compoundable
offences, where the facts of the case reveal
that the dispute is essentially private and
does not have a serious impact on society
at large, and where continuation of the
proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
14. In the present case, from the material
available on record and the submissions
advanced, it transpires that the parties
were acquainted with each other and are
of similar age group. The allegations do not
disclose any element of aggravated sexual
assault of a heinous nature but appear to
have arisen out of a personal relationship
between the parties, which has now been
amicably resolved. The complainant, who
is the father of the victim, has appeared
before this Court and has unequivocally
stated that he does not wish to pursue the
matter any further.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
2026:UHC:2726
Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v.
State of Punjab, and Parbatbhai Aahir v.
State of Gujarat has held that while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the High Court must evaluate
whether the ends of justice would justify
such exercise, even in non-compoundable
offences, having regard to the nature of the
offence and the overall circumstances of
the case.
16. Considering the totality of the facts
and circumstances, the nature of
allegations, the voluntary and genuine
compromise between the parties, and the
fact that continuation of proceedings
would serve no useful purpose, this Court
is of the view that this is a fit case where
inherent jurisdiction ought to be exercised
to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
17. Accordingly, the compounding
application is allowed. Consequently, the
charge-sheet as well as the entire
proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.
581 of 2021, pending in the Court of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge/F.T.C.,
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar are hereby
quashed.
18. The present C-528 application is,
accordingly, allowed.
19. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
MAMT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e5
84af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd
(Alok Mahra J.)
642671329b, postalCode=263001,
A RANI
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd
54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a19
1648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.04.16 19:34:45 +05’30’ 16.04.2026
Mamta
[ad_1]
Source link
