MUZAMMIL HASAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010191032026

2026:UHC:9759
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C528/2355/2026

Muzammil Hasan
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr.
Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holders for
the State.
3. Mr. Abhishek Joshi and Mr. Ravindra
S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent
nos.2 to 5.
4. Present application under Section 528
of the B.N.S.S., has been filed seeking
quashing of the charge-sheet, the
summoning/cognizance order dated
st
15.04.2026 passed by learned 1 Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun,
which is pending as Sessions Trial No.106 of
2026 (Old Criminal Case No. 2407 of 2026)
(arising out of F.I.R. NO.207 of 2019 dated
21.05.2019) against the applicant as well as
entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.106
of 2026 (Criminal Case No.2407 of 2026)
nd
pending in the court of learned 2 Addl.
Sessions Judge, District Dehradun as well
as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by

UKHC010191032026

2026:UHC:9759
the complainant against the applicant; that,
on the basis of the said allegations, the F.I.R.
was registered, and upon completion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted the charge-sheet against the
applicant, whereupon the learned Magistrate
took cognizance and summoned them to face
trial.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the incident
occurred due to a sudden scuffle between
the parties, in which both sides sustained
injuries. It is further submitted that,
although the injuries sustained by the
parties were grievous in nature, none of
them was dangerous to life; that, the dispute
arose out of a misunderstanding between the
parties, who reside in the same locality. He
would also submit that cross-F.I.R.s have
been lodged by the parties against each
other in respect of the same incident,
indicating that the dispute arose out of a
mutual altercation, therefore, the
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would serve no useful purpose, particularly
in view of the subsequent amicable
settlement between the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and have
decided not to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further. A compounding
application, along with the affidavits of the
parties, has been filed before this Court. The
applicant and the respondents are present
before the Court through video conferencing
and have been duly identified by their
respective counsel. Upon interaction with

UKHC010191032026

2026:UHC:9759
the parties, respondents have acknowledged
the settlement and stated that the dispute
has been resolved amicably, that they do not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
against the applicants, and that the
compromise has been entered into
voluntarily, without any force, pressure or
coercion, therefore, the impugned charge-
sheet, summoning/ cognizance order and
consequential criminal proceedings be
quashed in view of the amicable settlement.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel would
oppose the application on the ground that
some of the offences alleged against the
applicants are non-compoundable under
Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. However, learned
State counsel does not dispute the factum of
the amicable settlement between the parties
or the submission that both sides sustained
grievous injuries in the incident, none of
which was dangerous to life.
9. Having considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the material available
on record, this Court finds that the dispute
appears to have arisen out of a personal
altercation between the parties. The parties
have lodged cross-F.I.R.s in respect of the
same incident, and both sides are stated to
have sustained injuries during the
altercation. It is further evident that the
parties have now amicably resolved their
dispute, and the respondents have expressed
their unequivocal willingness not to pursue
the criminal proceedings against the
applicants.
10. Although some of the offences alleged

UKHC010191032026

2026:UHC:9759
against the applicants are non-
compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.,
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 528 B.N.S.S., is distinct from the
statutory power of compounding offences.
Such jurisdiction may be exercised to secure
the ends of justice, having regard to the
nature and gravity of the allegations, the
circumstances in which the incident
occurred, and the genuineness of the
settlement arrived at between the parties.
11. In the present case, the dispute
appears to be predominantly personal in
nature, and the parties have voluntarily
settled their differences. Therefore, the
question of quashing the criminal
proceedings is required to be considered in
the light of the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court governing the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction in criminal
matters involving an amicable settlement,
notwithstanding the non-compoundable
nature of certain offences.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303
has held that the High Court, in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C., is empowered to quash criminal
proceedings in appropriate cases where the
dispute is essentially of a private and
personal nature and the parties have settled
the matter amicably. The said principle has
been reiterated in Narinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan , (2019)
5 SCC 688, wherein it has been held that
criminal proceedings arising out of personal
disputes may be quashed when the parties

UKHC010191032026

2026:UHC:9759
have resolved their differences and the
continuation of such proceedings would
amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court.
13. In the present case, the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the
respondents have clearly stated before this
Court that he does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the applicants.
In view of the compromise arrived at between
the parties and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, continuation of
the criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose.
14. Accordingly, the compounding
application is allowed. Consequently, the
present C-528 application is also allowed.
The charge-sheet and cognizance/
summoning order dated 15.04.2026 passed
st
by learned 1 Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, District Dehradun, which is
pending as Sessions Trial No.106 of 2026
(Old Criminal Case No. 2407 of 2026)
(arising out of F.I.R. NO.207 of 2019 dated
21.05.2019) against the applicant as well as
entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.106
of 2026 (Criminal Case No.2407 of 2026)
nd
pending in the court of learned 2 Addl.
Sessions Judge, District Dehradun are
hereby quashed qua the applicant in terms
of the compromise arrived at between the
parties.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.

(Alok Mahra, J.)
28.10.2026
Mamta


MA
MTA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b
, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.10.29 16:00:00
+05'30'