MOHD SALMAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010199352026
2026:UHC:10256
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
with Signatures
C528/2496/2026
Mohd Salman
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel
for the applicant.
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned
A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Sunny Kumar, 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 applicant seeking quashing of the
charge-sheet dated 23.12.2025, the
summoning and cognizance order dated
12.03.2026, passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haldwani, District Nainital, in Criminal
Case No. 552 of 2026 (arising out of FIR
No. 0074 of 2024), titled “State vs.
Salman”, registered at Police Station
Haldwani, District Nainital, under
Sections 323 and 376 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the
“IPC”), as well as the entire proceedings
of the aforesaid criminal case, pending
before the Court of the learned Ist
Additional District Judge, Haldwani,
District Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 26
of 2026.
3. Along with the present application,
a compounding application, being I.A.
No. 01 of 2026, has also been filed. The
said application bears the signatures of
the parties and has been duly identified
by their respective learned counsel. The
UKHC010199352026
2026:UHC:10256
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. The applicant and respondent nos.
2 and 3 are present before this Court
and have been duly identified by their
respective learned counsel.
5. This Court has interacted with the
parties. During the interaction, the
parties submitted that they have
amicably settled their dispute and do not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
any further.
6. Learned State Counsel has opposed
the compounding application.
7. Upon interaction with this Court,
respondent nos. 2 and 3 reiterated that
the dispute has been amicably settled
between the parties and that they no
longer wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further.
8. Upon interacting with the parties
and considering the material available
on record, this Court is satisfied that the
settlement has been arrived at
voluntarily, without any coercion,
pressure or undue influence.
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have
unequivocally expressed their intention
not to pursue the criminal proceedings
any further.
9. Having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the dispute, the
allegations levelled, the settlement
arrived at between the parties and the
voluntary nature of the settlement, this
Court has considered whether
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would serve any useful purpose or
whether exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
BNSS is warranted in the interest of
UKHC010199352026
2026:UHC:10256
justice.
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 laid down the
principles governing the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction for quashing
criminal proceedings on the basis of a
compromise between the parties. While
exercising such jurisdiction, the Court is
required to consider the nature and
gravity of the offences, the
circumstances in which the dispute
arose and whether quashing of the
proceedings would secure the ends of
justice. The mere fact that the parties
have entered into a settlement does not,
by itself, warrant quashing of criminal
proceedings. The Court is required to
independently assess the facts and
circumstances of each case.
11. In view of the settlement arrived at
between the parties and the
circumstances placed on record, this
Court has considered the prayer for
quashing of the criminal proceedings in
the light of the aforesaid principles and
the nature of the allegations involved.
12. Accordingly, the compounding
application, being I.A. No. 01 of 2026, is
allowed. Consequently, in exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court
under Section 528 of the BNSS, the
charge-sheet dated 23.12.2025, the
summoning and cognizance order dated
12.03.2026, and the entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No. 552 of 2026,
arising out of FIR No. 0074 of 2024,
registered at Police Station Haldwani,
District Nainital, under Sections 323 and
376 IPC, pending before the Court of the
learned Ist Additional District Judge,
Haldwani, District Nainital, in Sessions
UKHC010199352026
2026:UHC:10256
Trial No. 26 of 2026, 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.)
05-11-2026
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=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b0 9c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9 BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA
BINJOLA Date: 2026.11.05 13:35:56 +05'30'