AVINASH SHARMA AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010197002026
2026:UHC:10314
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order with
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
Signatures
C528/2459/2026
Avinash Sharma And Others
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Suhail Ahmed
Siddiqui and Mr. Navneet Singh, learned
counsel for the applicants.
2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel and
Mr. Harshvardhan Dhanik (though Video
Conferencing), learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet
No.225 of 2022 dated 25.07.2022, the
summoning/cognizance order dated
26.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First, Bazpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No.608 of
2022, arising out of F.I.R. No.0172 of 2022,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 384,
449, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C., which was
subsequently registered as Sessions Trial
No.24 of 2023 and is presently pending
nd
before the Court of learned 2 Additional
District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, as well as the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case, qua the
applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by
UKHC010197002026
2026:UHC:10314
respondent no.2/complainant, alleging
therein that, on 27.04.2022, during the
night hours, the applicants, along with their
associates, assembled in front of the house
of respondent no.2 and started firing in the
air and thereafter, they forcibly entered his
house and assaulted the female members of
his family. It was further alleged that the
applicants committed robbery by taking
away cash and jewellery and, while leaving
the place of occurrence, threatened the
family members of the complainant with dire
consequences; that, pursuant to the
aforesaid F.I.R., the matter was investigated
by the police and, upon completion of the
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted
against the applicants, whereupon the
learned Magistrate took cognizance and
summoned them to face trial.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants
would further submit that the applicants
and respondent no.2 belong to the same
locality and that the dispute between them
arose out of a property dispute, which is
essentially civil in nature. He would further
submit that, pursuant to the registration of
the aforesaid criminal case, the applicants
were arrested and sent to judicial custody;
however, subsequently, they were enlarged
on bail and are presently on regular bail.
Since their release, the applicants have been
peacefully participating in the criminal
proceedings before the learned trial court;
that, the injuries sustained by the injured
persons in the alleged incident are simple in
nature.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants
would further submit that, with the
intervention of the respectable and elderly
UKHC010197002026
2026:UHC:10314
members of the society, the applicants and
respondent no.2/ complainant have
amicably settled their dispute. Since both
sides belong to the same locality, they have
decided to put an end to their differences in
order to maintain peace and harmony and to
avoid any further hostility between their
families. It is further submitted that the
parties do not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further. In support of the
aforesaid submissions, a joint compounding
application (I.A. No.1 of 2026), duly
supported by the affidavits of the applicants
and respondent no.2/complainant, has been
filed before this Court, wherein respondent
no.2 has categorically stated that he does
not wish to prosecute the applicants any
further.
8. Applicant nos.4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are
present in person before this Court, whereas
applicant nos.1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 are present
through Video Conferencing. Respondent
no.2/complainant is also present before this
Court. All the parties have been duly
identified by their respective learned
counsel. Upon interaction with the parties,
respondent no.2 has categorically stated that
he has amicably settled the dispute with the
applicants, with the intervention of the
elderly members of the society, and does not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any
further. The parties have also expressed
their willingness to maintain cordial
relations and live peacefully in future.
9. Learned State Counsel has opposed the
present application on the ground that the
offences alleged against the applicants are
non-compoundable in nature. However, he
does not dispute the factum of compromise
UKHC010197002026
2026:UHC:10314
arrived at between the parties or the filing of
the joint compounding application.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
11. From the material brought on record, it
transpires that the applicants and
respondent no.2 belong to the same locality
and that the dispute between them arose out
of a property-related dispute. It further
transpires that the parties have amicably
resolved their differences with the
intervention of the elderly members of the
society. Upon interaction with the parties,
this Court is satisfied that the settlement
has been arrived at voluntarily and that the
parties have no objection to the termination
of the criminal proceedings. The joint
compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026),
supported by the respective affidavits of the
parties, further substantiates the factum of
settlement. Respondent no.2 has specifically
stated that he does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the applicants.
12. It is true that the offences alleged
against the applicants are non-
compoundable in nature. However, the
power of this Court under Section 528 of
B.N.S.S. is distinct from the power of
compounding under Section 320 of the
Cr.P.C. The inherent jurisdiction of this
Court may be exercised to quash criminal
proceedings involving non-compoundable
offences on the basis of a genuine settlement
between the parties, provided that the
nature and gravity of the offences, their
impact on society and the attending
circumstances justify such exercise, and
UKHC010197002026
2026:UHC:10314
that quashing would secure the ends of
justice and prevent abuse of the process of
the Court.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC
303, and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab ,
(2014) 6 SCC 466, has laid down the
principles governing the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction for quashing criminal
proceedings on the basis of a compromise. It
has been held that, in cases involving
predominantly private or personal disputes,
the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings where the settlement is genuine
and voluntary and the possibility of
conviction is remote, provided that the
offences involved are not of such a serious
nature as to have a grave impact on society.
14. In the present case, although the
allegations include offences under Sections
307, 384 and 449 of the I.P.C., which are
serious in nature, this Court has considered
the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature of the dispute between the
parties, the material placed on record and
the fact that the parties have voluntarily
settled their differences. The Court is also
conscious that the mere factum of
compromise, by itself, is not sufficient to
quash proceedings involving serious
offences. However, having regard to the
circumstances of the present case and the
stand taken by respondent no.2, this Court
is satisfied that the dispute has been
amicably resolved and that the continuation
of the criminal proceedings would not serve
any useful purpose.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and
UKHC010197002026
2026:UHC:10314
circumstances, this Court is satisfied that
the compromise arrived at between the
parties is voluntary, genuine and without
any coercion or undue influence.
Consequently, no fruitful purpose would be
served by permitting the criminal
proceedings to continue against the
applicants. Rather, their continuation, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case,
would amount to an abuse of the process of
the Court. Accordingly, this Court finds it to
be a fit case for exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
B.N.S.S. to secure the ends of justice.
16. Accordingly, the joint compounding
application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) is allowed.
Consequently, the charge-sheet No.225 of
2022 dated 25.07.2022, the
summoning/cognizance order dated
26.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First, Bazpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, in Criminal Case No.608 of
2022, arising out of F.I.R. No.0172 of 2022,
and the consequential proceedings,
subsequently registered as Sessions Trial
No.24 of 2023, pending before the Court of
learned 2nd Additional District Judge,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are
hereby quashed qua the applicants.
17. The present C-528 application stands
allowed accordingly.
18. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
05.11.2026
Mamta