Uttarakhand High Court
C528/685/2026 on 16 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2707
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
No.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Registrar's order with
Signatures
C528/685/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Lalit Singh Sammal, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Ms. Sarita Bisht, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 & 3/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. 83 of 2023,
pending in the Court of learned Special
Judge, POCSO/F.T.C./Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District
Nainital, arising out of F.I.R. No. 57 of
2023, registered under Sections 363, 366,
376(2)(n) I.P.C. and Sections 5(1)/6 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 initially
lodged a missing report with respect to his
minor daughter. It is further submitted
that, as per the prosecution case itself, the
victim returned to her home on
07.10.2023 of her own accord. 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. It is further submitted that the victim
appeared before the concerned Magistrate
and her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she did not
support the prosecution version and
denied the allegations levelled against the
2026:UHC:2707
applicant. Learned counsel also submits
that at the time of lodging of the F.I.R., the
victim was stated to be about 16 years of
age.
7. It is also submitted that the applicant
and respondent nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the
complainant and the victim, have now
amicably resolved their inter se dispute
and have decided not to pursue the
criminal proceedings any further. In
support thereof, a joint compounding
application being I.A. No. 1 of 2026 has
been filed, duly supported by affidavits of
the applicant as well as respondent nos. 2
and 3, 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
nos. 2 and 3 are present in person before
this Court and have been duly identified
by their respective counsel. Upon
interaction with the Court, respondent
nos. 2 and 3 have affirmed the factum of
compromise and have stated in
unequivocal terms that the same has been
entered into out of their own free will,
without any coercion, undue influence or
pressure, and that they do 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.
11. The complainant and the victim are
2026:UHC:2707
present before this Court and have
categorically stated that they do 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 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.,
can quash criminal proceedings even in
respect of non-compoundable offences,
where it is satisfied that the dispute is
essentially private in nature and that
continuation of the proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of the
Court.
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
powers where the parties have amicably
settled their dispute, provided that such
quashing would secure the ends of justice.
Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
laid down the guiding principles for
quashing of proceedings on the basis of
compromise and has emphasized that the
Court must assess whether continuation
of proceedings would be futile and whether
quashing would advance the cause of
justice.
14. Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State
of Gujarat, it has been reiterated that the
inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude
and is to 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.
2026:UHC:2707
15. In the present case, having regard to
the statement of the victim recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has not
supported the prosecution case, her
presence before this Court, and her
categorical statement that she does not
wish to pursue the matter, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak.
Continuation of the criminal proceedings,
therefore, would serve no useful purpose.
16. Considering the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the case, as well as
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid judgments, this
Court finds it to be a fit case for exercising
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
17. Accordingly, the compounding
application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) is allowed.
Consequently, the charge-sheet as well as
the entire proceedings of Special Sessions
Trial No. 83 of 2023, pending in the Court
of learned Special Judge, POCSO
/F.T.C./Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, arising
out of F.I.R. No. 57 of 2023, registered
under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) I.P.C.
and Sections 5(1)/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
are hereby quashed.
18. The present C-528 application is,
accordingly, allowed.
19. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
MAM
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
TA
244f3e584af1449e430ef900b
(Alok Mahra J.)
f09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d
RANI
9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b6
6dd26690a191648ab5d8dd0
04ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI 16.04.2026
Mamta Date: 2026.04.16 19:31:35
+05’30’