JASSI ALIAS SAVEJ AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010187992026

2026:UHC:9885

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

No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

with Signatures

C528/2316/2026

Jassi Alias Savej And Ors
--Applicants

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
-Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Devansh Dhiman, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Puneet Uppal, 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
applicants seeking quashing of FIR No. 0174 of 2026,
dated 03.05.2026, registered under Sections 352 and
109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the “BNS”), at Police Station Kotwali
Roorkee, District Haridwar, as well as the charge-sheet
dated 03.06.2026, cognizance order dated 29.07.2026
and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1040
of 2026, State vs. Sakib and Others , under Sections
109, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, pending before the
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Roorkee, District Haridwar, insofar as the applicants
are concerned.
3. Along with the present application, an
application seeking permission to compound the
dispute, 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 and that respondent no. 2
does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any

UKHC010187992026

2026:UHC:9885

further.
4. The applicants and respondent no. 2 are present
before this Court and have been duly identified by their
respective learned counsel.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the
application seeking compounding of the dispute.
6. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the
applicants and respondent no. 2 are daily-wage earners
working together and that the incident in question
occurred on account of a trivial dispute between them.
It is further submitted that, with the intervention of
well-wishers and upon mutual understanding, the
parties have amicably resolved their differences and do
not wish to pursue the matter any further.
7. Upon being queried by this Court, respondent
no. 2 has categorically stated that the dispute between
the parties has been amicably settled and that he does
not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the
applicants any further.
8. 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 no. 2 has unequivocally
expressed his willingness to put an end to the dispute
and has stated that he has no objection to the criminal
proceedings being quashed insofar as the applicants are
concerned.
9. Having regard to the nature and circumstances in
which the dispute arose, the allegations levelled against
the applicants, the subsequent amicable settlement
between the parties and the voluntary nature of such
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 interest of justice.
10. 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 ,

UKHC010187992026

2026:UHC:9885

(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 settlement between the parties. It has
been held that, while exercising such jurisdiction, the
Court must take into consideration the nature and
gravity of the offences, the circumstances in which the
dispute arose and the impact of quashing the
proceedings on the ends of justice. Merely because the
parties have entered into a settlement, criminal
proceedings cannot be quashed as a matter of course.
The Court is required to independently examine the
facts and circumstances of each case and determine
whether the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction would
advance the cause of justice.
11. In the present case, the dispute appears to have
arisen out of a trivial altercation between the parties,
who are daily-wage earners and were working together.
The parties have subsequently resolved their
differences amicably. Respondent no. 2 is present
before this Court and has personally affirmed the
factum of settlement and expressed his unwillingness
to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. The
settlement has also been found to be voluntary and free
from any coercion or undue influence.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
and upon an independent consideration of the nature of
the dispute and the material available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that, subject to the
allegations and nature of the offences being examined
in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the applicants would serve no
useful purpose and that the ends of justice would be
better secured by bringing the proceedings to an end.
Accordingly, this Court finds it to be a fit case for
exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the BNSS.
13. Consequently, the settlement arrived at between
the parties is taken on record and the application being

UKHC010187992026

2026:UHC:9885

I.A. No. 01 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly.
The present application under Section 528 of the BNSS
is allowed. Accordingly, FIR No. 0174 of 2026 dated
03.05.2026, registered at Police Station Kotwali
Roorkee, District Haridwar, under Sections 352 and
109 of the BNS, the charge-sheet dated 03.06.2026, the
cognizance order dated 29.07.2026 and the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1040 of 2026, State
vs. Sakib and Others , under Sections 109, 352 and 3(5)
of the BNS, pending before the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District
Haridwar, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
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.)
30-10-2026
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=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fb
d40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B52 83D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2026.10.30 18:32:04 +05'30'