AMARJEET SINGH 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


UKHC010193282026
C528/2399/2026

Amarjeet Singh
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the
State.
3. Mr. Chandramauli Shah, Advocate for
the complainant/respondent no. 2.
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 Criminal
Case No. 18893 of 2026, under Sections
106(1) and 281 of BNS, pending in the court
of learned 1st ACJM, Dehradun, on the basis
of compromise between the parties.
5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by
respondent no. 2 alleging therein when his
father went from Vikasnagar to Dehradun and
reached I.S.B.T., Dehradun, a bus of
Chandigarh Roadways driven by the applicant
hit his father, due to which, his father died at
the spot.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that there was no eye-witness to the

incident, who witnessed the vehicle to be
driven rashly and negligently by the applicant,
which caused death of complainant’s father.
7. Now, Compounding Application is filed in
the matter wherein it is prayed to compound
the offences between the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and have entered into a
compromise.
9. Applicant and Respondent no.2 are
present before this Court and are duly
identified by their respective counsel. Parties
have also filed their respective affidavits
stating the facts of compromise between them.
10. The Court interacted with the parties.
Upon interaction, it is submitted that
complainant has amicably settled his dispute
with the applicant and does not want to
pursue with the criminal proceedings against
the applicant.
11. At this stage, learned State Counsel
raised a preliminary objection to the effect
that the offences sought to be compounded
are non-compoundable.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 Criminal Case No. 18893 of
2026, under Sections 106(1) and 281 of BNS,
pending in the court of learned 1st ACJM,
Dehradun, are hereby quashed qua the
applicant.
15. Accordingly, the present criminal misc.
application stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.

(Alok Mahra J.)
30.10.2026
Ujjwal