FAIZ MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010191062026

2026:UHC:9762
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C528/2356/2026


Faiz Mohammad And Others
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned
counsel for the applicants.
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
23.10.2019 passed by learned 1 Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Dehradun, which is pending as Sessions
Trial No.85 of 2024 (Old Criminal Case No.
5507 of 2019) (arising out of F.I.R. No.207
of 2019 dated 21.05.2019), under Sections
147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 506
I.P.C. against the applicant no.5 and
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325
and 506 I.P.C. against applicant nos. 1 to
4 as well as entire proceedings of Sessions
Trial No.85 of 2024 (Old Criminal Case
No.5507 of 2019) pending in the court of

UKHC010191062026

2026:UHC:9762
nd
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 the complainant against the applicants
and, upon completion of the investigation,
the Investigating Officer submitted the
charge-sheet against them. It is further
submitted that applicant no. 5 was
charge-sheeted for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325,
307 and 506 I.P.C., whereas applicant
nos. 1 to 4 were charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 323, 324, 325 and 506 I.P.C.
Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences and summoned
the applicants to face trial.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants
would further submit that the incident
occurred due to a sudden scuffle between
the parties, during which both sides
sustained injuries; that, the dispute arose
out of a misunderstanding between the
parties, who reside in the same locality.
He would further submit kthat although
some of the injuries were grievous in
nature, none of them was dangerous to
life. Referring to the medical evidence,
learned counsel would submit that the
injury allegedly inflicted by applicant no. 5
upon the injured Yamin resulted in a
fracture of the right ulna, the bone
extending between the wrist and the
elbow, and that the said injury was not
opined to be dangerous to life, therefore,
the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not

UKHC010191062026

2026:UHC:9762
made out against the applicant no.5.
7. Learned counsel would further
submit that cross-F.I.R.s were lodged by
both parties in respect of the same
incident, which indicates that the
occurrence arose out of a mutual
altercation. It is, therefore, contended
that, in view of the nature and
circumstances of the incident and the
subsequent amicable settlement arrived at
between the parties, the continuation of
the criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants
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 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.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel

UKHC010191062026

2026:UHC:9762
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.
10. 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.
11. Although some of the offences alleged
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

UKHC010191062026

2026:UHC:9762
between the parties.
12. 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.
13. 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
have resolved their differences and the
continuation of such proceedings would
amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court.
14. 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

UKHC010191062026

2026:UHC:9762
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.
15. Accordingly, the compounding
application is allowed. Consequently, the
present C-528 application is also allowed.
The charge-sheet and cognizance/
summoning order dated 23.10.2019
st
passed by learned 1 Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, District Dehradun, which is
pending as Sessions Trial No.85 of 2024
(Old Criminal Case No. 5507 of 2019)
(arising out of F.I.R. No.207 of 2019 dated
21.05.2019), as well as entire proceedings
of Sessions Trial No.85 of 2024 (Old
Criminal Case No.5507 of 2019) pending
nd
in the court of learned 2 Addl. Sessions
Judge, District Dehradun are hereby
quashed in terms of the compromise
arrived at between the parties.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.

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=6a812005bebfcf46f2
44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf
09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d
9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b6
6dd26690a191648ab5d8dd0
04ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.10.29 16:00:51
+05'30'

(Alok Mahra, J.)
28.10.2026

Mamta