ANKUSH SEHGAL AND ANR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010135882025
2026:UHC:9659
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528/1542/2025
Ankush Sehgal And Anr
--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another
--Respondents
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned
counsel for the applicants.
Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Rajendra Arya and Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Kaparuwan, learned counsel for
respondent no. 2.
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 applicants seeking quashing of
the charge-sheet dated 21.08.2021, the
summoning order dated 27.09.2021, and
the entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No. 4887 of 2021 (Case Crime No. 348 of
2021), State vs. Ankush Sehgal and
Another , for the offences punishable
under Sections 195A and 228A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as the “IPC”), arising out of
the case registered at Police Station
Kotwali Haldwani, District Nainital, and
pending before the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haldwani, District Nainital.
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
UKHC010135882025
2026:UHC:9659
application is supported by affidavits of
the parties, wherein it has been stated
that they have amicably settled their
dispute and that respondent no. 2 does
not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further.
4. The applicants are present in
person, while respondent no. 2 is
present before this Court through video
conferencing. All the parties have been
duly identified by their respective
learned counsel.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed
the application for compounding,
contending that the offences alleged are
non-compoundable.
6. Upon being interacted with by this
Court, respondent no. 2 submits that
the dispute has been amicably settled
between the parties and that she no
longer wishes to pursue the matter any
further.
7. 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 no. 2 has unequivocally
expressed her desire not to pursue the
criminal proceedings any further.
8. Having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the dispute, the
allegations involved, the fact that the
parties have amicably settled their
differences, and the voluntary nature of
the settlement, this Court has
considered whether the continuation of
the criminal proceedings would serve
any useful purpose or whether the
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the BNSS is
warranted in the interests of justice.
9. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ,
(2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v.
UKHC010135882025
2026:UHC:9659
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 elucidated 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
must consider the nature and gravity of
the offences, the circumstances in which
the dispute arose, and whether quashing
the proceedings would secure the ends
of justice.
10. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, and
upon consideration of the nature of the
allegations, the material available on
record, and the amicable settlement
arrived at between the parties, this
Court has considered the prayer for
quashing the criminal proceedings in the
light of the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The fact that
respondent no. 2 does not wish to
pursue the proceedings any further is a
relevant consideration. This Court has
also taken into account the nature and
gravity of the offences alleged, the
circumstances in which the dispute
arose, and the impact of continuation of
the proceedings on the administration of
justice. Upon an overall consideration of
these aspects, this Court is of the view
that quashing the proceedings, insofar
as the applicants are concerned, would
secure the ends of justice.
11. Consequently, the compounding
application (I.A. No. 01 of 2026) is
allowed of in terms of the settlement
arrived at between the parties. In
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction
vested in this Court under Section 528
of the BNSS, the charge-sheet dated
21.08.2021, the summoning order dated
UKHC010135882025
2026:UHC:9659
27.09.2021, and the entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No. 4887 of 2021 (Case
Crime No. 348 of 2021), State vs. Ankush
Sehgal and Another , for the offences
punishable under Sections 195A and
228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
arising out of the case registered at
Police Station Kotwali Haldwani, District
Nainital, and pending before the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital,
are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
12. Accordingly, the present criminal
miscellaneous application under Section
528 of the BNSS stands disposed of.
13. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
27-10-2026
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=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f218 22fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67 B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.10.27 18:41:46 +05'30'