Rajdeep Gogoi vs State of Uttarakhand

2026:UHC:4505
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528/1230/2026

With
Compounding Appl. No. 2 of 2026

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, learned counsel
holding the brief of Mr. Vidushi Bhardwaj,
leaned counsel for the complainant.
4. The present application has been preferred
under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 for quashing of
the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5886
of 2024, State vs. Rajdeep Gogoi, wherein the
present applicant is facing the trial for the
offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A
IPC.
5. Instant application is moved along with
the compounding application supported with
the affidavits of the applicant and the
respondent/ complainant.
6. It is contended that in fact the incident
was nothing but an accident in which the
husband of the informant died during treatment
and thereafter claim petition was filed before the
MACT wherein compensation was awarded by
the MACT to the respondent. It is contended in
the compounding application that now the
parties have settled the dispute, since the
incident is only an accident, and now
compensation has been awarded, therefore, the
proceeding be closed by allowing the
compounding application.
7. The applicant and the respondent/
complainant are present in Court and are
identified by their counsel.
8. Mr. Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State
submits that the offences are non compoundable
but taking into consideration that MACT has
already awarded compensation by treating the

2026:UHC:4505
incident to be an accident, therefore with the
leave of the Court compounding application can
be allowed.
9. In reference to the non compoundable
offence, the counsel for the parties relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein certain principles has
been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The
relevant extract is reproduced herein as under:-
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving
adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising
its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement
and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished
from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the
High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even
in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
(II)When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor
in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve
heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise
between the victim and the offender.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire
disputes among themselves.
(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as
crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However,

2026:UHC:4505
the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead
to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would
be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained,
whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered
by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this
prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a
strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote
and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and
quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be
permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the
offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage,
the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the
parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve
their future relationship.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of
the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases
where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged
commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the
High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the
criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this
stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been
filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is
yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can
show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima
facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the
other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after
the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,
normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as
to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the
trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court,
mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept
the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been
convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section
307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and,
therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a
crime.
13. After hearing the arguments of the learned
counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that the parties have settled their
dispute, after award passed by the Tribunal and
the respondent/complainant who is present in
Court does not want to pursue with the
proceeding in view of the settlement arrived in
between the parties this Court is of the view that
the compounding application deserves to be
allowed.
14. In such view of the matter, and after

2026:UHC:4505
taking into consideration all these aspects and
the submissions as advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties the present C528
application as well as compounding application
are allowed and the entire proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 5886 of 2024, State vs.
Rajdeep Gogoi, pending in the court of C.J. M.
Dehradun is also hereby quashed.


(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
05.06.2026
Parul