Uttarakhand High Court
C528/797/2026 on 29 April, 2026
2026:UHC:3097
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/797/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, learned
counsel for respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
24.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun, in
connection with Session Trial No. 26 of
2025, arising out of Case Crime registered
under Sections 376(2)(n), 504 and 506
I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District
Dehradun, presently pending in the Court
of learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge/FTSC, Dehradun, as well as the
entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.
5. An amendment application has been
moved on behalf of the applicant seeking
certain corrections in the memo of the
present application.
6. For the reasons stated therein, the
amendment application is allowed.
7. Let the amended memo be taken on
record.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that respondent no. 2 lodged the
F.I.R. on 06.01.2024 under Sections
376(2)(n), 504 and 506 I.P.C. at Police
2026:UHC:3097
Station Kotwali, Dehradun. Upon
completion of investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted a charge-
sheet, whereupon the learned Magistrate
took cognizance and summoned the
applicant to face trial.
9. He would further submit that the
applicant has falsely been implicated;
that, the statement of the prosecutrix
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does
not disclose the commission of an offence
under Section 376 I.P.C. Rather, it reflects
that the parties were in a consensual
relationship from the year 2021 to 2024.
10. Learned counsel further submits that
during the pendency of proceedings, the
parties have amicably settled their
dispute. A joint compounding application
being I.A. No. 1 of 2026, duly supported
by affidavits of the applicant and
respondent no. 2, has been filed stating
that the compromise has been entered
into voluntarily, without any coercion,
undue influence or pressure, and that
respondent no. 2 does not wish to pursue
the criminal proceedings any further.
11. The applicant as well as respondent
no. 2 appeared before this Court on the
previous date of hearing and were duly
identified by their respective counsel.
Upon interaction, respondent no. 2
affirmed the factum of compromise and
her intention not to proceed with the
matter.
12. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application on the ground that the
offences alleged, particularly under
Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 I.P.C., are non-
compoundable in nature. However, the
2026:UHC:3097
factum of compromise between the parties
is not disputed.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record.
14. The question which arises for
consideration is whether, in exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., this Court can quash criminal
proceedings involving non-compoundable
offences on the basis of compromise
between the parties.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC
303 has held that the High Court, in
exercise of its inherent powers, may quash
criminal proceedings even in respect of
non-compoundable offences where the
dispute is essentially private and personal
in nature and where continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of Court or where quashing would
secure the ends of justice.
16. In Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab
(2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has laid down broad guidelines for
quashing of criminal proceedings on the
basis of compromise, inter alia,
emphasizing that the Court must consider
the nature and gravity of the offence, the
impact on society, and whether
continuation of proceedings would serve
any useful purpose. Further, in
Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat
(2017) 9 SCC 641, it has been reiterated
that the inherent power of the High Court
is of wide amplitude and is to be exercised
to secure the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court, though
such power must be exercised with due
2026:UHC:3097
caution.
17. In the present case, from the
material on record, it appears that the
dispute between the parties has arisen out
of a personal relationship. The prosecutrix
has categorically stated that she has
entered into a compromise voluntarily and
does not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings. There is nothing on record to
indicate that the compromise is vitiated by
coercion or undue influence.
18. Having regard to the nature of
allegations, the relationship between the
parties, and the voluntary settlement
arrived at between them, this Court is of
the considered opinion that continuation
of the criminal proceedings would not
serve any fruitful purpose and would
amount to abuse of the process of Court.
19. Accordingly, the compounding
application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) is allowed.
20. Consequently, the charge-sheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
24.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun, in
Session Trial No. 26 of 2025, as well as
the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
case pending before the Court of learned
Additional District & Sessions
Judge/FTSC, Dehradun, are hereby
quashed.
21. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly,
allowed.
22. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
MAMT
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
(Alok Mahra, J.)
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584a
f1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671
A RANI
329b, postalCode=263001,
29.04.2026
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd548
52c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab
5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Mamta
Date: 2026.04.30 17:17:44 +05’30’
2026:UHC:3097
[ad_1]
Source link
