Uttarakhand High Court
Rafiq Ahmad Alias Munna vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 9 July, 2026
UKHC010106442021
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482/1175/2021
Rafiq Ahmad Alias Munna
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others
--Respondents
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3. Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the
respondent no.2.
4. Mr. Rafiq Ahmad alias Munna, the applicant,
is present through video conferencing duly
identified by Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate.
5. Smt. Rajni Devi, the respondent no.2 is
present through video conferencing duly identified
by Mr. Vikash Bahguna, Advocate.
6. Mr. Sonu Kumar, the victim, is present
through video conferencing duly identified by Mr.
Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate.
7. The applicant has filed this Criminal Misc.
Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the
following reliefs :-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to set
aside/quash the impugned chargesheet dated
26.07.2021 in FIR No. 121/2021, U/s 147, 323, 352,
504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(n)(k) of the
Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) as well as
the cognizance and summoning order dated
03.08.2021 passed by Special Judge (the Schedule
Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989)/Vth Additional Session Judge, Dehradun
UKHC010106442021in S.S.T. No. 3 of 2021, whereby the present
applicant has been summoned to face the trial U/s
323, 352, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(n) (/k)
of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further
prayed that during pendency of present criminal
misc application the further proceedings of S.S.T.
No. 3 of 2021 Rafiq & others Vs State of
Uttarakhand & another pending before Special
Judge (the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989)/ Vth Additional
Session Judge, Dehradun may kindly be stayed,
otherwise applicant shall suffer irreparable loss
and injury.”
8. During the pendency of the present Criminal
Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
a Compounding Application (IA No.6 of 2026) has
been filed duly supported by an affidavit on behalf
of the victim Sonu Kumar S/o Shri Baburam,
resident of 75 Sangam Vihar, Near Balliwala
Chowk, P.S. Basant Vihar, Dehradun. In the said
affidavit, the victim has stated that during the
pendency of the present application, the parties have
got their dispute settled amicably outside the Court
and now ready to get the offences compounded.
Affidavits have also been filed on similar lines on
behalf of the respondent no.2 and the applicant in
support of the Compounding Application.
9. On an interaction with the victim, Sonu
Kumar, he reiterates that the parties have got settled
their disputes amicably and he wishes to compound
the offence against the applicant and does not wish
to pursue the matter any further.
10. The Court also interacted with the respondent
no.2 Smt. Rajni Devi / informant and she has also
reiterated that the matter has got settled between the
parties outside the Court and she is ready to get the
offences compounded and does not want to pursue
the matter any further.
11. The Court also interacted with the applicant
Rafiq Ahmad @ Munna, who also states that the
parties have buried their differences, as such, the
Compounding Application may be allowed.
12. On a query made by the Court to the learned
counsel for the applicant as to whether the offence
under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and
UKHC010106442021
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 can be compounded inter alia with other
offences under the IPC, the learned counsel for the
applicant placed reliance upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13
SCC 635 and particularly attention of the Court is
drawn to para 17 thereof, which is extracted
hereunder for ready reference.
“17. On the other hand, where it appears to
the Court that the offence in question, although
covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or
civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not
been committed on account of the caste of the
victim, or where the continuation of the legal
proceedings would be an abuse of the process of
law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the
proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a
prayer for quashing on the basis of a
compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that
the underlying objective of the Act would not be
contravened or diminished even if the felony in
question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the
offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would
not refrain this Court or the High Court, from
exercising their respective powers under Article 142
of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
13. Placing reliance upon the said judgment of the
Apex Court, the learned counsel for the applicant
would urge the Court to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the
proceedings on the basis of the compromise /
settlement arrived at between the parties.
14. Learned A.G.A. objects that the offences are
not compoundable, however, the dispute appears to be
private in nature. It also needs to be mentioned that in
the cases of “B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of
Haryana and another“, (2003) 4 SCC 675, “Nikhil
Merchant vs. CBI and another“, (2008) 9 SCC 650
and “Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab”, 2012 (10) SCC
303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115
of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of
Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has permitted the compounding of
non-compoundable offence and has held that in
exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
UKHC010106442021
compounding can be done in non-compoundable
offences.
15. Hence, the objection raised by the State
counsel is not sustainable.
16. Since the matter has already been resolved
between the parties, hence, it will be a futile exercise
to let the matter go for trial against the applicant.
17. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, the Compounding
Application (IA No. 6 of 2026) deserves to be
allowed. The Compounding Application is
accordingly allowed.
18. As a consequence thereof, the entire
proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2021,
Rafiq and others Vs State of Uttarakhand and
another, pending before Special Judge (Schedule
Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989) / Vth Additional Sessions Judge,
Dehradun as well as impugned charge-sheet dated
26.07.2021 and summoning / cognizance order dated
03.08.2021, qua the present applicant, are hereby
quashed.
19. The present criminal Misc. Application is
disposed accordingly.
20. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
09.07.2026
Shiv/
