JUGRAJ SINGH ALIAS YUVRAJ SINGH ALIAS JAGGA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010190622026

2026:UHC:10261


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No. 2175 of 2026
05 November, 2026

1. Jugraj Singh Alias Yuvraj Singh Alias Jagga
2: Aadesh Thakur
3: Shivam

--Petitioners

Versus
1. State Of Uttarakhand
2: Station House Officer
3: Jumma

--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence :-

Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for petitioners.
Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. M.K.Ray, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the First Information
Report No. 284 of 2026 dated 25.09.2026, for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 309(6)
and 351(3) of BNS 2023, registered with Police Station
Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties.
3. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application (IA/1/2026) is filed and
signed duly supported by separate affidavits by
petitioners, respondent No.3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are
in jail, therefore, after taking authority letter attested by
Superintendent, Sub Jail, Haldwani, they have filed
1

UKHC010190622026

2026:UHC:10261
compounding application.
4. In the compounding application, it has been
stated by the parties that the parties have reached to the
terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also
reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present
first information report be quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.
5. Petitioner no.3-Shivam and respondent no.3-
Jumma are present before this Court being duly
identified by their respective counsel. Petitioner no. 1
and 2 are in jail. On interaction, respondent Nos.3
stated that they are same of the adjoining places and do
not want to prosecute the above case against the
petitioners in view of the amicable settlement arrived
between them. They fairly conceded that they have no
objection if compounding application is allowed.
6. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied
upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of
Jaiveer Malik & Another Vs. The State of
Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.864-866 of
2024 , wherein, the proceedings arising out of FIR
No.223 of 2016 were set aside, which too were registered
Yogendra
under Section 307 of IPC, taking recourse of
Yadav case as noted below.
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand
and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 , in Para 4 it
has been observed as under:
“4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this
Court can compound the offences under Sections 326
2

UKHC010190622026

2026:UHC:10261
and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable.
Needless to say that offences which are non-
compoundable cannot be compounded by the court.
Courts draw the power of compounding offences from
Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be
strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) (2012)
10 SCC 303. However, in a given case, the High Court
can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power
under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact
that the parties have amicably settled their disputes
and the victim has no objection, even though the
offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the
High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the
proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of
each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude,
grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced
by quashing the proceedings because that will have
harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be
said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If
such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to
the society. However, when the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and,
therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and
where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on
account of compromise would bring about peace and
would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to
quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a
lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution
would be waste of time and energy. That will also
u settle the compromise and obstruct restoration of
n
peace. ”

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that
‘if Court is convinced that the offences are entirely
personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public
peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring
about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should
not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the
prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such
a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy.
That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct
restoration of peace’.
10. Having considered the submissions made by
3

UKHC010190622026

2026:UHC:10261
learned counsel for the parties and the principle
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Yogendra Yadav (Supra) , which is reiterated in Jaiveer
, this Court is of the opinion that since the
Malik (Supra)
parties have reached to the terms of the compromise,
there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of
conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that
it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since
the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this
Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to
compound the matter.
11. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/2/2026) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived
at between the parties is accepted. The First Information
Report No. 289 of 2026 dated 28.09.2026, for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2),
191(2), 117(2), 309(4), 324(2), 351(3) and 352 of BNS
2023, registered with Police Station Gadarpur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed qua the
petitioners. Consequently, all the subsequent
proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically
shall come to an end qua the petitioners with the
aforesaid condition.
12. The present criminal writ petition stands
allowed accordingly.
13. Since the petitioner no.1 and 2 Jugraj Singh
and Aadesh Thakur are in Sub Jail Haldwani in
pursuance to the first information report, and since now
the said FIR has been quashed, in such view of the
matter, the Superintendent of Sub Jail Haldwani is
directed to release the petitioners Jugraj Singh @ Yuvraj
4

UKHC010190622026

2026:UHC:10261
Singh and Aadesh Thakur who are lodged in the jail in
connection with the impugned FIR, if not wanted any
other case.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.


(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.11.2026
Nahid







5