MAYANK AND ANR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


UKHC010187052026
C528/2302/2026

Mayank And Anr
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Tejas Agarwal and Mr. Arvind
Kumar, Advocates for the applicants.
2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, A.G.A. for the State.
3. Ms. Suman Karki, Advocate for
respondent nos. 2 and 3.
4. The present criminal misc. application is
filed with a prayer to set-aside the
chargesheet, summoning/cognizance order as
well as the entire proceedings of Session Trial
No. 17 of 2026, under Sections 109, 3(5) and
351(2) of BNS, pending in the court of learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri
Garhwal, on the basis of compromise between
the parties.
5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by
mother of Rahul, who was the injured, in
which, after investigation, chargesheet/ final
report was filed under Sections 109, 3(5) and
351(2) of BNS. As per the prosecution story,
scuffle took place between the applicants and
the injured in a Fair ( Mela ) and the injured
suffered grievous injuries on his head.
Medical examination of the injured was

conducted, whereby, incised wound
measuring 6 X 1 X 1 cm on forehead,
superficial incised wound measuring 3 X 0.5
X 0.5 cm on chest were found.
6. Now, Compounding Application is filed in
the matter wherein it is prayed to compound
the offences between the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the aforementioned injuries were
not grievous in nature and furthermore there
was no intention of the applicants to cause
death of the injured, therefore, offence under
Section 109 of BNS is not made out in the
case. It is further submitted that the parties
have amicably settled their dispute and have
entered into a compromise.
8. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present
before this Court through video conferencing
and are duly identified by their respective
counsel. Applicant nos. 1 and 2 are in jail and
their father has filed the affidavit on behalf of
them. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have also filed
their respective affidavits stating the facts of
compromise between them.
9. The Court interacted with the parties.
Upon interaction, it is submitted that now
complainant has amicably settled her dispute
with the applicants and she does not want to
pursue with the criminal proceedings against
the applicants.
10. At this stage, learned State Counsel
raised a preliminary objection to the effect
that the offences sought to be compounded
are non-compoundable.
11. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of
Haryana reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page
675, has permitted compounding of non-

compoundable offences with the permission of
Court.
12. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
a catena of its judgments, has observed that
in cases where because of the compromise
arrived at between the parties, possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings as
continuation of the same would cause great
prejudice and injustice to the accused.
13. Following the aforesaid ratio, the present
compounding application is allowed. The
offences between the parties are permitted to
be compounded. As a result, the entire
proceedings of Session Trial No. 17 of 2026,
under Sections 109, 3(5) and 351(2) of BNS,
pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, are
hereby quashed qua the applicants.
14. Applicants are in judicial custody. They
shall be released from judicial custody
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
15. Accordingly, the present criminal misc.
application stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.

(Alok Mahra J.)
29.10.2026
Ujjwal