MOHD ARMAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010138402026

2026:UHC:9764

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
SL.
Date

No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

with Signatures

C528/1728/2026
Mohd Arman
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Nishant Krishna Adhikari, learned counsel for
the applicant.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Rakshit Srivastava, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 and 3.
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 entire proceedings of
Special Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2025, State v. Hasim
and Another , under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the
“BNS”), pending before the Court of the learned Special
Sessions Judge (POCSO Act)/Sessions Judge,
Champawat, insofar as the same relate to the applicant.
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 settled their dispute

UKHC010138402026

2026:UHC:9764

and that respondent no. 2 does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings any further.
4. The applicant and respondent nos. 2 and 3 are
present before this Court and have been duly identified
by their respective learned counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
It is contended that the only role attributed to the
applicant is that he assisted the victim and the co-
accused by purchasing railway tickets and facilitating
their boarding of the train. It is further submitted that,
during the pendency of the proceedings, the victim
attained the age of majority.
6. This Court interacted with the victim, who stated
that she knows the applicant only because he resides in
the same locality as her. She further stated that no other
allegation has been made against the present applicant
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 finds that the
role attributed to the applicant is limited to allegedly
assisting the victim and the co-accused in leaving the
area by arranging railway tickets and facilitating their
boarding of the train. The applicant’s counsel has further
submitted that no specific role constituting abetment has
been attributed to the applicant.
8. Having regard to the statements made by the
parties and the circumstances placed before this Court,
the settlement appears to have been arrived at

UKHC010138402026

2026:UHC:9764

voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure or undue
influence.
9. Learned State Counsel has opposed the
compounding application on the ground that the offence
under Section 61(2) of the BNS is non-compoundable.
10. The question that arises for consideration is
whether the criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the
alleged settlement between the parties, warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
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. The
Court, while exercising such jurisdiction, is required to
consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the
circumstances in which the dispute arose, the role
attributed to the accused, and whether quashing the
proceedings would secure the ends of justice. The mere
fact that an offence is non-compoundable does not, by
itself, foreclose the exercise of inherent jurisdiction;
however, such jurisdiction must be exercised in
accordance with the settled principles of law.
12. Having considered the nature of the allegations,
the role attributed to the applicant, the submissions
advanced on his behalf, and the statements made by the
victim before this Court, the Court is required to

UKHC010138402026

2026:UHC:9764

determine whether continuation of the proceedings
against the applicant would serve the ends of justice.
The fact that the victim has attained the age of majority
during the pendency of the proceedings and has
expressed her unwillingness to pursue the matter has
also been taken into consideration, without treating
either circumstance as conclusive by itself.
13. Accordingly, subject to the foregoing
considerations and upon being satisfied that the exercise
of inherent jurisdiction is warranted in the facts of the
present case, the compounding application (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 proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 16
of 2025, State v. Hasim and Another , under Section
61(2) of the BNS, pending before the Court of the
learned Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act)/Sessions
Judge, Champawat, are hereby quashed insofar as they
relate to the applicant.
14. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous
application under Section 528 of the BNSS stands
disposed of.
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=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21
822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67 B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2026.10.28 16:23:47 +05'30'