CHANRAMOHAN JOSHI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010114012025

2026:UHC:9771

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


C528/1233/2025
Chanramohan Joshi
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others

--Respondents
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for
the applicant.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, 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 applicant seeking quashing of the
charge-sheet dated 14.04.2025, the summoning
order dated 13.06.2025, and the entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No. 0693 of 2025, State v.
Chandra Mohan Joshi, pending before the Court of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh.
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 they have amicably

UKHC010114012025

2026:UHC:9771

settled their dispute and that respondent no. 2 and
the other respondents do not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings any further.
4. The applicant and respondent nos. 2 to 5 are
present before this Court through video
conferencing and have been duly identified by their
respective learned counsel.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the
compounding application.
6. As per the prosecution case, the applicant
was driving an Alto car in a rash and negligent
manner, resulting in an accident in which the
complainant’s son and another person, who is the
son of respondent no. 3, sustained injuries.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the accident occurred due to a malfunction in
the headlights of the vehicle and that the parties
have now amicably settled their dispute.
8. Upon interaction with this Court, respondent
nos. 2 to 5 have stated that the dispute has been
amicably settled between the parties and that they
no longer wish to pursue the matter any further.
9. 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 nos. 2 to 5
have unequivocally expressed their desire not to
pursue the criminal proceedings any further.
10. Having regard to the nature and

UKHC010114012025

2026:UHC:9771

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.
11. 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, 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. The
mere fact that the parties have entered into a
settlement does not, by itself, warrant quashing of
criminal proceedings; the Court must independently
assess the facts and circumstances of each case.
12. In view of the settlement arrived at between
the parties, the statements made by respondent nos.
2 to 5 before this Court, and the circumstances
placed on record, this Court, upon being satisfied
that continuation of the proceedings would not
serve the ends of justice, finds it appropriate to

UKHC010114012025

2026:UHC:9771

exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528
of the BNSS.
13. Accordingly, the compounding application,
being I.A. No. 01 of 2026, is allowed 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 14.04.2025, the summoning order dated
13.06.2025, and the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 0693 of 2025, State v. Chandra Mohan
Joshi, pending before the Court of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, are hereby
quashed.
14. Accordingly, the present criminal
miscellaneous application under Section 528 of the
BNSS stands disposed of in the above terms.
15. 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=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c2 4b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A54 2D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5D D9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2026.10.28 19:24:41 +05'30'