Uttarakhand High Court
C528/622/2026 on 9 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2584
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
No.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Registrar's order with
Signatures
C528/622/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Devashish Rana, learned counsel
for respondent no.2/complainant.
4. The present C-528 application has
been filed seeking quashing of the charge-
sheet as well as the entire proceedings of
Special Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2024
pending in the Court of learned Special
Sessions Judge, Champawat, arising out of
F.I.R. No. 76 of 2023, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 354,
363, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012, on the basis of a compromise
allegedly arrived at between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that respondent no.2/complainant
lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. alleging that the
applicant had molested the victim on several
occasions and had also established physical
relations with her. It is submitted that after
completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted a charge-
sheet against the applicant, upon which the
learned trial court took cognizance and the
proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 08
of 2024 are presently pending.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the victim appeared
before the concerned Magistrate and her
statement was recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., wherein she did not support the
allegations as narrated in the F.I.R. Rather,
she categorically stated that she was in a
consensual relationship with the applicant
and had even expressed her desire to marry
him. However, her mother did not agree to
the said proposal and, under emotional
distress and pressure from certain villagers
2026:UHC:2584
who had seen the applicant and the victim
together, the F.I.R. came to be lodged. It is
further submitted that the victim has also
stated that no incident, as alleged in the
F.I.R., had ever taken place. Learned
counsel further submits that at the time of
lodging of the F.I.R., the victim was about
16 years of age and now she has attained
the age of majority.
7. It is next contended that the applicant
and respondent no.2/victim have now
amicably resolved their dispute and do not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any
further. In this regard, a joint compounding
application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026), duly
supported by the affidavits of the applicant
as well as respondent no.2/victim, has been
filed before this Court stating that the
dispute has been settled amicably and that
the complainant does not intend to
prosecute the applicant any further.
8. The applicant as well as respondent
no.2/victim are present in person before
this Court and have been duly identified by
their respective counsel. Upon interaction
with the Court, respondent no.2/victim has
stated that the dispute has been amicably
settled between the parties and that the
F.I.R. was lodged due to pressure from the
villagers. She has further stated that no
incident as alleged in the F.I.R. had ever
occurred and that she does not wish to
pursue the criminal proceedings against the
applicant. She has also stated that the
compromise has been entered into
voluntarily and without any coercion, undue
influence or pressure and that she has no
objection if the criminal proceedings against
the applicant are quashed.
9. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application on the ground that the
allegations pertain to serious offences which
are non-compoundable in nature,
particularly the offences under the POCSO
Act. However, he does not dispute the
factum of compromise between the parties
nor the filing of the joint compounding
2026:UHC:2584
application supported by their affidavits.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
11. From the material placed before this
Court, it appears that the dispute between
the parties arose in the backdrop of a
personal relationship between the applicant
and respondent no.2. The victim is present
before this Court and has categorically
stated that the allegations made in the F.I.R.
were levelled due to pressure from villagers
and that she does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings any further. The Court
is satisfied that the compromise arrived at
between the parties appears to be voluntary,
genuine and without any coercion or undue
influence.
12. It is true that the offences alleged in
the present case are non-compoundable in
nature. However, it is well settled that the
High Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may
quash criminal proceedings even in respect
of non-compoundable offences where the
Court is satisfied that the dispute is
essentially private in nature and that the
continuation of criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court
or would otherwise defeat the ends of
justice.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab has held that the
High Court may quash criminal proceedings
in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction where
the parties have amicably resolved their
dispute, provided that such exercise of
power would secure the ends of justice.
Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down the principles governing the exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on
the basis of compromise and held that the
Court must consider whether continuation
of the criminal proceedings would be futile
and whether quashing would secure the
ends of justice.
2026:UHC:2584
14. Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State
of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reiterated that the inherent power of the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of
wide amplitude and may be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court or
to secure the ends of justice, depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
15. In the present case, considering the
statement of the victim recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., the presence of the
victim before this Court, and her categorical
statement that she does not wish to pursue
the criminal proceedings, this Court is of the
view that continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose
and would rather amount to abuse of the
process of the Court.
16. In view of the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the
considered view that this is a fit case for
exercising the inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to secure the
ends of justice.
17. Accordingly, the compounding
application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) is allowed.
18. Consequently, the charge-sheet as well
as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions
Trial No. 08 of 2024 pending in the Court of
learned Special Sessions Judge,
Champawat, arising out of F.I.R. No. 76 of
2023, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 354, 363, 376, 506 I.P.C.
and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
are hereby quashed.
19. The present C-528 application is
accordingly allowed.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra J.)
09.04.2026
Mamta
2026:UHC:2584