HARIDAS SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010186042026

2026:UHC:9725

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

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C528/2287/2026
Haridas Singh
--Applicant

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Another
--Respondents
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Jeevan Arya, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Anuj Singh Kunjwal, learned counsel for
respondent no. 2.
2. The present criminal miscellaneous
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 30.03.2022, the cognizance and summoning
order dated 11.10.2023, and the entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No. 959 of 2023, arising out of
FIR No. 224 of 2021, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 504, 506
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), at Police
Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar,
pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of
a compromise arrived at between the parties.

UKHC010186042026

2026:UHC:9725

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
application is supported by affidavits of the parties,
wherein it has been stated that the dispute between
them has been amicably settled and that respondent
no. 2 does not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further.
4. The applicant and respondent no. 2 are
present before this Court and have been duly
identified by their respective learned counsel.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the
compounding application.
6. Upon interaction with this Court, respondent
no. 2 has reiterated that the dispute has been
amicably settled between the parties and that he
does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
any further.
7. This Court has interacted with the parties and
has carefully considered the material available on
record. The statements made by the parties, coupled
with the affidavits filed in support of the
compounding application, satisfy this Court that the
settlement has been arrived at voluntarily, without
any coercion, pressure or undue influence.
Respondent no. 2 has unequivocally expressed his
desire not to pursue the criminal proceedings
against the applicant.

UKHC010186042026

2026:UHC:9725

8. The question that arises for consideration is
whether, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the criminal proceedings deserve to be
quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS on the
basis of the settlement arrived at between the
parties.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, 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, has elucidated the principles governing
the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing
criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise
between the parties. It has been held that the power
of the High Court is distinct from the power of a
criminal court to compound offences under Section
320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and
that the exercise of such inherent jurisdiction
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
10. In the present case, this Court has considered
the nature of the dispute, the allegations levelled
against the applicant, the settlement arrived at
between the parties, and the unequivocal statement
of respondent no. 2 that he does not wish to pursue
the matter further.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is satisfied that the settlement
is voluntary and that continuation of the criminal

UKHC010186042026

2026:UHC:9725

proceedings, in the circumstances established on
record, would not serve any useful purpose.
Accordingly, this Court considers it a fit case for
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section
528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice.
12. Consequently, the compounding application,
being I.A. No. 01 of 2026, is allowed. In exercise of
the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court under
Section 528 of the BNSS, the charge-sheet dated
30.03.2022, the cognizance and summoning order
dated 11.10.2023, and the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 959 of 2023, arising out of FIR
No. 224 of 2021, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 504, 506
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), at Police
Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar,
pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby
quashed qua the applicant.
13. Accordingly, the present criminal
miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
14. All pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
28-10-2026
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=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12 f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED0
0E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.10.28 19:25:38 +05'30'