Uttarakhand High Court
C528/82/2026 on 13 February, 2026
2026:UHC:923
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C528/82/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Balvinder Singh, learned counsel
for the applicants.
2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy
A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned
A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel
for private respondent no.3.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of the impugned Chargsheet,
cognizance/ summoning order dated
06.12.2021 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case
No. 6026 of 2021, as well as the entire
criminal proceedings of the said case, in
view of the compromise arrived at between
the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged
alleging that on 13.09.2021, when the
complainant along with his companions was
having food at a restaurant, the applicants
allegedly reached there and assaulted the
complainant and his companions with
sticks and sharp-edged weapons. It was
further alleged that when the companions of
the complainant intervened, applicant no.1
fired a gunshot from his licensed revolver
towards the complainant; however, no
firearm injury was sustained by any person.
It is also alleged that respondent no.3
sustained simple injuries during the
incident. After investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted a charge-
sheet under Sections 307, 323 and 506
I.P.C., and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959
2026:UHC:923
against applicant no.1, and under Sections
323 and 506 I.P.C. against applicant nos.2
to 4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the
learned Magistrate took cognizance vide
order dated 06.12.2021.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants
would further submit that the dispute
between the parties arose out of a sudden
altercation and personal enmity, and with
the intervention of respectable persons of
the locality, the matter has now been
amicably settled. A joint compounding
application supported by affidavits of the
applicants as well as the complainant and
injured persons has been filed before this
Court, stating unequivocally that the
dispute has been resolved and they do not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
any further.
7. Learned State counsel opposes the
prayer for quashing on the ground that the
offences under Section 307 I.P.C. and
Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 are non-
compoundable in nature under Section 320
Cr.P.C., being offences against the State.
However, learned State counsel does not
dispute the genuineness of the compromise
entered into between the parties.
8. To this, learned counsel for the
applicants submits that the ingredients of
Section 307 I.P.C. are not made out in the
present case as no firearm was recovered
from the possession of the applicants
during investigation, no empty cartridge
was seized, and admittedly no firearm
injury was sustained by any of the injured
persons. The medical reports disclose only
simple injuries. Thus, the allegation under
Section 307 I.P.C. appears to have been
incorporated without sufficient material,
and the dispute essentially remains
personal in nature.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties
2026:UHC:923
and perused the record.
10. The principal question which arises for
consideration is whether this Court, in
exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash the criminal
proceedings involving non-compoundable
offences in view of the compromise arrived
at between the parties.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 11.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10
SCC 303, has held that the High Court, in
exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., 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 process of law,
provided that the offences are not heinous,
serious, or of a nature that impacts society
at large.
12. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court laid down guidelines for quashing
criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise, observing that the High Court
must examine the nature and gravity of the
offence, the impact on society, the
antecedents of the accused, and whether
the compromise is genuine and voluntary. It
was further held that even in cases
involving Section 307 I.P.C., the High Court
may examine whether the charge has been
framed merely for the sake of it or whether
sufficient material exists to support the
allegation of attempt to murder.
13. Further, in State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that while
serious and heinous offences ordinarily
should not be quashed on the basis of
compromise, the High Court is empowered
to examine whether incorporation of Section
2026:UHC:923
307 I.P.C. is justified on the basis of
material collected during investigation. If
the injuries are simple and the weapon
allegedly used does not support the
prosecution version, and the matter is
predominantly of a private character, the
High Court may exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.
14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the
facts of the present case, this Court finds
that the injuries sustained by the injured
persons are simple in nature. No firearm
injury has been reported. There is no
recovery of firearm or empty cartridge to
substantiate the allegation of firing. The
dispute appears to have arisen out of a
sudden altercation between the parties.
The complainant and injured persons have
categorically stated that they have no
objection if the proceedings are quashed.
15. In view of the above facts and the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
this Court is of the considered opinion that
the dispute is essentially personal in nature
and continuation of the criminal
proceedings, despite the amicable
settlement, would serve no useful purpose.
16. Accordingly, the compounding
application is allowed. Consequently, the C-
528 application is allowed. The impugned
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order
dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case
No. 6026 of 2021, as well as the entire
criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case,
are hereby quashed on the basis of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
17. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
13.02.2026
Mamta
2026:UHC:923
