X MINOR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:4467
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528/1224/2026


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3. Mr. Ish Mohan Bhatt, learned
counsel for respondent no.2/complainant.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the Challani
Report No. 01 of 2025,
summoning/cognizance order dated
12.11.2025 passed in Criminal
Inquiry/Case No.09 of 2025 pending
before the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Tehri Garhwal for the offence punishable
under Sections 115(2) and 124(1) B.N.S.
and the entire proceedings of aforesaid
case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submits that an F.I.R. was lodged
by the complainant alleging that his son,
who was studying in Class VIII, was
attending a chemistry class on 08.09.2025
between 12:00 P.M. and 12:15 P.M.; that,
during the class, the applicant allegedly
first threw water and then acid on the
complainant's son, causing injuries to his
cheeks and eyes. It is further alleged that
the complainant's son informed his father
over the phone that he had a quarrel with
the applicant about one month earlier and
that the applicant was holding a grudge

2026:UHC:4467
against him and the complainant's wife
thereafter took the child for medical
treatment. Learned counsel further
submits that after investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed the Challani
Report. Thereafter, the learned Juvenile
Justice Board took cognizance of the
offences and issued summons to the
guardian of the child in conflict with law
vide order dated 12.11.2025. The
proceedings are presently pending before
the Juvenile Justice Board, Tehri
Garhwal.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would
further submit that, considering the young
age and future prospects of both the
applicant and the victim, their respective
natural guardians have amicably settled
the dispute outside the Court. He submits
that a joint compounding application (I.A.
No. 1 of 2026), along with affidavits of
both parties, has been filed stating that
the matter has been resolved amicably
and that the complainant no longer wishes
to pursue the case against the applicant.
7. The natural guardian of the applicant
is present through Video Conferencing
and respondent no. 2 are present before
the Court in person and have been duly
identified by their respective counsel.
Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 stated
that the compromise has been entered
into voluntarily, without any pressure,
threat, or undue influence, and that he
has no objection if the criminal
proceedings are quashed.
8. Learned State Counsel opposes the
compounding application. However, he

2026:UHC:4467
does not dispute that a compromise has
been entered into between the parties.
9. This Court has considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material
available on record. It is not disputed that
the applicant is a child in conflict with law
and the victim is also a minor. The record
reflects that subsequent to initiation of the
proceedings, the parties, through their
respective natural guardians, have
amicably resolved their dispute and have
expressed their desire to maintain cordial
relations in future. The compromise
application supported by affidavits of the
parties.
10. The natural guardian of the applicant
as well as respondent no.2 have appeared
before this Court and have unequivocally
stated that the compromise has been
entered into voluntarily, out of their own
free will and without any coercion,
pressure or undue influence from any
quarter. Respondent no.2 has specifically
stated that he does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings any further and has
no objection if the proceedings are
quashed.
11. Though the offences alleged are not
compoundable in terms of the provisions
of the Code, it is well settled that the High
Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(corresponding powers under law), may
quash criminal proceedings where the
dispute is predominantly personal in
nature and where continuation of the
proceedings would serve no useful

2026:UHC:4467
purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10
SCC 303, held that criminal proceedings
arising out of private disputes may be
quashed on the basis of a genuine
settlement between the parties if such
exercise advances the ends of justice.
12. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court laid down the guiding principles
governing quashing of criminal
proceedings on the basis of compromise
and observed that where the parties have
settled their disputes and the possibility of
conviction has become remote and bleak,
continuation of the proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of law.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat,
(2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC
688, reiterated that while exercising
inherent jurisdiction, the Court must
consider the nature of the offence, the
impact upon society and whether
quashing would secure the ends of justice.
The paramount consideration is to prevent
abuse of the process of Court and to
promote substantial justice between the
parties.
14. In the present case, both the
applicant and the victim are minors
studying in school. The incident appears
to have arisen out of a dispute between
children of tender age. The victim has
recovered from the injuries and the
respective guardians of both children have
consciously resolved the matter in the

2026:UHC:4467
larger interest of the future, education and
rehabilitation of the minors. Having regard
to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, the age of the parties, the
genuine nature of the compromise and the
remote possibility of any fruitful outcome
from continuation of the proceedings, this
Court is of the considered view that the
ends of justice would be better served by
giving quietus to the litigation rather than
permitting the proceedings to continue.
15. Accordingly, the compromise
application is allowed. Consequently, the
present C-528 application is also allowed.
The Challani Report No.01 of 2025, the
summoning/cognizance order dated
12.11.2025 passed in Criminal
Inquiry/Case No.09 of 2025 pending
before the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Tehri Garhwal for the offences punishable
under Sections 115(2) and 124(1) of B.N.S.
as well as the entire proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed in terms of
the compromise arrived at between the
parties.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.



Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f
3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6
7ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca
bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266
90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.06.05 14:18:30 +05'30'
MAMT
A RANI
(Alok Mahra, J.)
03.06.2026
Mamta