NARESH GANGWAR ALIAS VIKAS PATEL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010192372026
2026:UHC:9939
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order with
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
SL.
Date
No.
Signatures
C528/2385/2026
Naresh Gangwar Alias Vikas Patel
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned counsel for the
applicants.
2. Mr. Vipul Painuali, learned A.G.A. along
with Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr.
Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holders for the
State.
3. Ms. Priya Mewari, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 & 3
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed to quash the chargesheet, impugned
summoning/cognizance order dated
12.09.2024 passed by learned
FTC/ADJ/Special Judge POCSO Rudrapur in
Criminal Case No.742 of 2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 64(1) of
B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
pending before the court of learned Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate/F.T.S.C. Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar as well as the
entire proceedings of the criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that, as per the prosecution case, the
mother of the victim lodged the F.I.R. alleging
that the applicant enticed the victim, who is
the minor daughter of the complainant, and
took her to his house, where he allegedly
committed forcible sexual intercourse with
her at gunpoint. It is further alleged that the
applicant threatened the victim with dire
UKHC010192372026
2026:UHC:9939
consequences, including killing her parents,
in case she disclosed the incident to anyone
and subsequently, the victim narrated the
entire incident to her mother. He would
further submit that, at the time of the alleged
incident, the victim was a minor, whereas the
applicant was a young boy aged about 21
years.
6. Learned counsel would further submit
that the applicant and the victim were known
to each other and were on friendly terms even
at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. He would
submit that, after attaining the age of
majority, the victim (respondent no. 2) and
the applicant solemnized their marriage on
26.10.2026 in accordance with Hindu rites
and rituals. He would further submit that, in
the meantime, the investigation was
concluded and a charge-sheet was submitted
against the applicant, on the basis of which
the learned trial court took cognizance of the
offences alleged against him.
7. It is next contended that the applicant
and respondent nos.2 and 3 have now
amicably settled their dispute and do not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any
further. In this regard, a joint compounding
application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) duly supported
by the affidavits of the applicant as well as
respondent nos.2 and 3 has been filed before
this Court stating that the matter has been
resolved amicably and that the complainant
does not intend to prosecute the applicant
any further.
8. The applicant as well as respondent
nos.2 and 3 (complainant and victim) are
present in person before the Court and have
been duly identified by their respective
counsel. Upon interaction with the Court,
UKHC010192372026
2026:UHC:9939
respondent no.2/the victim, she does not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
against the applicant any further since the
marriage between them has already been
solemnized with the consent of the families
and she is presently residing with the
applicant and both of them are living together
peacefully and discharging their matrimonial
obligations. She has categorically stated that
she does not wish to prosecute the applicant
and has no objection if the criminal
proceedings are quashed.
9. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application on the ground that the allegations
pertain to serious offences which are non-
compoundable in nature, particularly under
the POCSO Act. However, he does not dispute
the factum of compromise between the
parties nor the filing of the joint
compounding application supported by their
affidavits.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on record.
11. From the material placed before this
Court, it appears that the dispute between
the parties had arisen in the backdrop of a
personal relationship between the applicant
and respondent no.2. It is not disputed that
the parties have now solemnized marriage
after attaining majority and are living
together as husband and wife.
13. The presence of the complainant and
the victim before this Court and their
categorical statements leave no doubt that
the compromise arrived at between the
parties is voluntary, genuine and without any
coercion or undue influence.
14. It is true that the offences alleged are
UKHC010192372026
2026:UHC:9939
non-compoundable. However, it is well
settled that the High Court, in exercise of its
inherent powers under 582 B.N.S.S., may
quash criminal proceedings even in respect of
non-compoundable offences, if the Court is
satisfied that the dispute is essentially of a
personal nature and that continuation of the
criminal proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of law.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303
has held that the High Court may quash
criminal proceedings in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction where the dispute
between the parties is overwhelmingly
personal or matrimonial in nature and the
parties have resolved their dispute amicably,
provided that such exercise of power would
secure the ends of justice.
16. Similarly, in Narinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has laid down the principles
governing the exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of
compromise and held that the Court must
consider whether the continuation of criminal
proceedings would be futile and would not
serve the ends of justice. Further, in
Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017)
9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reiterated that the inherent power of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of wide
amplitude and may be exercised to quash
criminal proceedings in order to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court or to secure
the ends of justice, having regard to the
nature of the offence and the circumstances
of the case.
17. In the present case, the Court finds that
UKHC010192372026
2026:UHC:9939
the applicant and respondent no.3 are now
lawfully married and are living together. The
complainant as well as the victim have
clearly stated that they do not wish to pursue
the criminal proceedings any further. In such
circumstances, continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose
and would adversely affect the matrimonial
life of the parties.
18. Considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the view
that this is a fit case for exercising the
inherent powers to secure the ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court.
19. Accordingly, the compounding
application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) is allowed.
20. Consequently, the charge-sheet as well
as the cognizance/summoning order dated
12.09.2024 passed by learned
FTC/ADJ/Special Judge POCSO Rudrapur in
Criminal Case No.742 of 2024 pending before
the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate/F.T.S.C. Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, along with the entire
criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are
hereby quashed.
21. The present C-528 application is,
accordingly, allowed.
22. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Alok Mahra J.)
29.10.2026
MA
MTA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2
44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0
9a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d
9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b6
6dd26690a191648ab5d8dd0
04ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.10.31 18:58:29
+05'30'
Mamta