MOHD KASIM ALIAS MOHD KASIF AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010139552025

2026:UHC:9772

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
SL.
No
.
Date
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
with Signatures

C528/1586/2025
Mohd Kasim Alias Mohd Kasif And Ors

--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others
-Respondents

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Anuj Singh Kunjwal, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. The present application under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the “BNSS”), has been filed by the applicants
seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 02.04.2023, the
cognizance /summoning order dated 11.04.2023, and the
entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 395 of
2023, arising out of FIR No. 677 of 2022, State v. Mohd.
Kasim and Others, for the offences punishable under
Sections 354, 384, 506 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), and Sections 16
and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”),
registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar, and pending before the Court of the learned Fast
Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on
the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties.
3. Along with the present application, a compounding

UKHC010139552025

2026:UHC:9772

application, being I.A. No. 01 of 2025, has also been filed.
The said application bears the signatures of the parties and
has been duly identified by their respective learned counsel.
The application is supported by affidavits of the parties,
wherein it has been stated that they have amicably settled
their dispute and that respondent nos. 2 and 3 do not wish to
pursue the criminal proceedings any further.
4. Applicant nos. 1 and 2 are present before this Court.
Applicant no. 3 is unable to appear, as she is hospitalised
and is at an advanced stage of pregnancy. Respondent nos. 2
and 3 are also present before this Court, and the parties
present have been duly identified by their respective learned
counsel.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the compounding
application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
present FIR is false, frivolous and devoid of any substantive
basis. It is further submitted that applicant nos. 1 and 2 had
previously instituted proceedings against respondent no. 3
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
on account of dishonour of a cheque issued by respondent
no. 3 in their favour. It is contended that the present FIR was
lodged as a counterblast to the aforesaid proceedings.
7. Upon interaction with this Court, respondent nos. 2
and 3 submit that the present FIR was lodged owing to
certain misunderstandings between the parties and that, in
view of the amicable settlement subsequently arrived at,
they no longer wish to pursue the matter any further.
8. Upon interacting with the parties present before it and
considering the material available on record, this Court is

UKHC010139552025

2026:UHC:9772

satisfied that the settlement has been arrived at voluntarily,
without any coercion, pressure or undue influence.
Respondent nos. 2 and have unequivocally expressed their
desire not to pursue the criminal proceedings any further.
9. Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the
dispute, the allegations levelled against the applicants, the
rival submissions advanced by learned counsel, and the
settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court has
considered whether continuation of the criminal proceedings
would serve the ends of justice or whether exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 528
of the BNSS is warranted.
10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303;
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC
688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elucidated the
principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for
quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise
between the parties. The Court, while exercising such
jurisdiction, must consider the nature and gravity of the
offences, the circumstances in which the dispute arose, the
impact of the alleged offences on society, and whether
quashing the proceedings would secure the ends of justice. It
is also well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court
is distinct from the power to compound offences and may be
exercised in appropriate cases involving non-compoundable
offences, subject to the settled principles of law.
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the allegations
contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet, the submissions
advanced on behalf of the applicants, and the settlement

UKHC010139552025

2026:UHC:9772

stated to have been arrived at between the parties, this Court
is required to independently assess whether the present case
warrants exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The mere fact
that the parties have entered into a compromise or that the
complainants are no longer interested in pursuing the
proceedings cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient ground
for quashing proceedings involving serious offences,
particularly those under the POCSO Act.
12. Accordingly, the compounding application, being I.A.
No. 01 of 2025, is disposed of in terms of the settlement
arrived at between the parties. In exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 528 of the
BNSS, the charge-sheet dated 02.04.2023, the
cognizance/summoning order dated 11.04.2023, and the
entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 395 of
2023, arising out of FIR No. 677 of 2022, State v. Mohd.
Kasim and Others, for the offences punishable under
Sections 354, 384, 506 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, and Sections 16 and 17 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending before the Court
of the learned Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
13. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous
application under Section 528 of the BNSS stands disposed
of in the above terms.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.


(Alok Mahra, J.)
28-10-2026
SB
SHIKSHA
BINJOLA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639 b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F1
8FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.10.28 19:25:18 +05'30'