Savej And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 July, 2026

    0
    2
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Uttarakhand High Court

    Savej And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 July, 2026

                                                             UKHC010120022026
    
    
    
                                                                     2026:UHC:5711
                  Office Notes,
                 reports, orders
                 or proceedings
    SL.
          Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
    No.
                 and Registrar's
                   order with
                   Signatures
                                   C528/1481/2026
    
                                   Savej and another           ........Applicants
                                                         Versus
                                   State Of Uttarakhand       .......Respondent
                                   Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
    

    Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned
    counsel for the applicants.

    2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A.
    for the State.

    SPONSORED

    3. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel
    for respondent nos.2 to 4/complainants.

    4. Present C-528 application has been
    filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet
    as well as the entire proceedings of
    Criminal Case No.301 of 2025, under
    Sections 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2),
    333, 352, 351(2), of the B.N.S.S. pending
    in the court of learned A.C.J.M./Civil
    Judge (S.D.), Laksar, District Haridwar
    arising out of F.I.R. No. 180 of 2026 as
    well as the entire proceedings of the
    aforesaid case.

    5. Learned counsel for the applicants
    would submit that respondent nos.2, 3 &
    4 lodged F.I.R. No.180 of 2026, pursuant
    to which the police conducted
    investigation and ultimately submitted a
    charge-sheet against the applicants; that,
    on the basis of the said charge-sheet, the
    learned trial Court took cognizance and
    registered Criminal Case No.301 of 2025;
    that, the dispute arose on account of an
    altercation between the parties regarding
    the boundary of their agricultural land. It
    is further submitted that, in respect of the
    very same incident, a cross F.I.R. was also
    UKHC010120022026

    2026:UHC:5711
    lodged by the mother of the applicants
    against the complainant side, which
    clearly demonstrates that the occurrence
    emanated from a sudden quarrel between
    the two families.

    6. Learned counsel for the applicants
    would further submit that, during the
    pendency of the proceedings, the parties
    have amicably resolved all their disputes
    and have decided to maintain cordial
    relations in future. In this regard, a joint
    compromise application (I.A. No.1 of
    2026), duly supported by the affidavits of
    the applicants and respondent nos.2 to 4,
    has been filed before this Court, wherein it
    has been categorically stated that the
    dispute has been settled voluntarily,
    without any coercion, undue influence or
    pressure, and that respondent nos.2 to 4
    do not wish to prosecute the applicants
    any further. It is also submitted that the
    present applicants are presently in judicial
    custody; therefore, the affidavits on their
    behalf have been sworn by their mother.

    7. Learned counsel for respondent
    nos.2 to 4 supports the submissions
    advanced on behalf of the applicants and
    submits that the compromise has been
    voluntarily arrived at between the parties
    and that respondent nos.2 to 4 have no
    objection if the criminal proceedings
    arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are
    quashed.

    8. The mother of applicant nos. Savej
    and Sultan as well as respondent nos.2 to
    4 are present before this Court and have
    been duly identified by their respective
    learned counsel. Upon interaction with the
    Court, respondent nos.2 to 4 have
    unequivocally stated that they have
    amicably settled the dispute with the
    applicants of their own free will and
    volition and do not wish to pursue the
    criminal proceedings any further. They
    UKHC010120022026

    2026:UHC:5711
    have further stated that the compromise
    has been entered into voluntarily and
    without any coercion, inducement or
    undue influence, and that they have no
    objection if the charge-sheet and the
    consequential criminal proceedings are
    quashed.

    9. Learned State Counsel would oppose
    the application on the ground that the
    offences alleged are non-compoundable in
    nature. However, he does not dispute the
    fact that the parties have entered into a
    compromise and that the joint
    compromise application is duly supported
    by their respective affidavits.

    10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
    and perused the material available on
    record.

    11. From the record, it transpires that
    the criminal proceedings emanate from a
    dispute arising out of an altercation
    between the parties regarding of their
    agricultural land. It further appears that a
    cross F.I.R. has also been lodged by the
    applicants’ side in respect of the same
    incident, indicating that the occurrence
    arose out of a personal dispute between
    the two families. Respondent nos.2 to 4,
    who are present before this Court, have
    categorically stated that they have
    amicably resolved the dispute and do not
    wish to continue with the prosecution.
    Upon interacting with them, this Court is
    satisfied that the compromise is genuine,
    voluntary and has been entered into
    without any coercion, undue influence or
    pressure.

    12. It is true that the offences alleged in
    the present case are non-compoundable.
    Nevertheless, it is equally well settled that
    the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
    under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. is
    of wide amplitude and may be exercised to
    quash criminal proceedings where the
    UKHC010120022026

    2026:UHC:5711
    dispute is predominantly private or
    personal in nature and where
    continuation of the criminal proceedings
    would amount to abuse of the process of
    the Court or would otherwise defeat the
    ends of justice.

    13. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
    (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme
    Court held that the High Court may, in
    exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, quash
    criminal proceedings involving non-
    compoundable offences where the dispute
    is essentially private in nature and the
    compromise between the parties would
    advance the ends of justice.
    In Narinder
    Singh and others v. State of Punjab and
    another
    , (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble
    Supreme Court laid down the guiding
    principles governing the exercise of
    inherent powers for quashing criminal
    proceedings on the basis of compromise
    and observed that the Court must
    examine the nature of the offence, the
    antecedents of the parties, the stage of the
    proceedings and whether continuation of
    the prosecution would serve any useful
    purpose.
    Likewise, in Parbatbhai Aahir @
    Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and
    others v. State of Gujarat and another
    ,
    (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme
    Court reiterated that the inherent power of
    the High Court is intended to secure the
    ends of justice and prevent abuse of the
    process of law, and that each case must
    be examined on its own facts to determine
    whether quashing would be justified.

    14. Having regard to the nature of the
    dispute, the fact that it arose out of a
    personal altercation between the parties,
    the existence of a cross F.I.R., the
    voluntary settlement arrived at between
    the parties, and the categorical statements
    made by respondent nos.2 to 4 before this
    Court that they do not wish to pursue the
    UKHC010120022026

    2026:UHC:5711
    criminal proceedings, this Court is of the
    considered opinion that the possibility of
    securing a conviction is extremely remote.
    Continuation of the criminal proceedings,
    in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
    the case, would serve no useful purpose
    and would amount to an abuse of the
    process of the Court.

    15. Consequently, this Court is satisfied
    that the present case is a fit one for
    exercising its inherent jurisdiction under
    Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. to secure the
    ends of justice.

    16. Accordingly, the compounding
    application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) stands
    allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet
    as well as the entire proceedings of
    Criminal Case No.301 of 2025, pending
    before the Court of learned A.C.J.M./Civil
    Judge (Senior Division), Laksar, District
    Haridwar, arising out of F.I.R. No.180 of
    2026, are hereby quashed qua the
    applicants.

    17. Since applicants Savej and Sultan
    are stated to be in judicial custody in
    connection with the present case, they
    shall be released forthwith, if not required
    to be detained in connection with any
    other case, subject to compliance with all
    requisite formalities.

    18. The present application under
    Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., is accordingly
    allowed and disposed of.

    19. Pending applications, if any, shall also
    stand disposed of.

    MA Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
    DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
    UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
    (Alok Mahra J.)
    MTA
    UTTARAKHAND,
    2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e5
    84af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd6
    13.07.2026
    Mamta 42671329b, postalCode=263001,
    st=Uttarakhand,
    serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd
    54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a191
    648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA

    RANI
    RANI
    Date: 2026.07.13 17:51:03 +05’30’



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here