SHOYEB ALIAS TOYYAB 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


UKHC010070302026
C528/868/2026

Shoyeb Alias Toyyab
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the
State.
3. Mr. Susheel Kumar, Advocate for the
complainant/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 Special
Sessions Trial No. 193 of 2023, under
Sections 323, 376(3), 376(f), 504 and 506 of
IPC and Sections 3(a)/4(2), 5(n)/6 of POCSO
Act, pending in the court of learned Addl.
District and Sessions Judge/POCSO,
Haridwar, on the basis of compromise
between the parties.
5. As per the prosecution story, the
applicant had sexually assaulted the victim,
who was his sister-in-law and who was
residing temporarily at his house.
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 applicant
submits that statements of the victim and the
complainant were recorded as PW1 and PW2
and both of them have denied the prosecution
story and were declared hostile. It is further
submitted that no victim has attained the age
of majority.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further
submits that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and have entered into a
compromise.
9. Applicant and Respondent nos.2 and 3
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 FIR was
lodged due to some misunderstanding and
now complainant has amicably settled her
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 Special Sessions Trial No. 193
of 2023, under Sections 323, 376(3), 376(f),
504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(a)/4(2),
5(n)/6 of POCSO Act, pending in the court of
learned Addl. District and Sessions
Judge/POCSO, Haridwar, 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