ANURAG vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010159742026

2026:UHC:9482
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C528/1977/2026


Anurag
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Vipul Painuali, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Mr. Abhishek Joshi, learned counsel
for respondent nos.2 and 3.
4. The defect(s) as pointed out by the
Registry are overlooked.
5. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
25.02.2026 as well as the entire criminal
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4337 of
2026 (Case Crime/F.I.R. No.89 of 2025)
under Section 125(b), 281 and 324(4) of
B.N.S. pending in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Dehradun.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged
by the complainant, alleging therein that
on 10.06.2025, her brother was travelling
on a motorcycle with his friend when, at a
crossing, an Alto car allegedly being driven

UKHC010159742026

2026:UHC:9482
by the applicants hit the motorcycle,
resulting in serious injuries to both
occupants. On the basis of the aforesaid
allegations, the F.I.R. was registered. He
would further submit that, upon
completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted a charge-
sheet against the present applicants,
whereupon the learned trial court took
cognizance of the offence.
7. Learned counsel would further
submit that, with the intervention of
respectable members of society, the
parties have amicably resolved their
dispute. In this regard, a joint
compounding application, being I.A. No. 1
of 2026, duly supported by affidavits of
both the applicants and respondents, has
been filed before this Court. The
application records that the compromise
has been entered into voluntarily, out of
free will, and without any coercion,
pressure, or undue influence.
Respondents/complainant and injured
have unequivocally stated that they do not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
against the applicant.
8. The applicant as well as the
respondents are present through Video
Conferencing before this Court and have
been duly identified by their respective
learned counsel. Upon interaction with the
respondents/complainant and injured,
they affirmed the factum of compromise
and reiterated that the dispute has been
amicably settled between the parties.
9. Learned State counsel would oppose

UKHC010159742026

2026:UHC:9482
the compounding application and on the
ground that some of the offences alleged
against the applicant are non-
compoundable offences, However, he does
not dispute the factum of compromise
entered into between the parties.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
11. From the material brought on record
as well as the statements made before this
Court, it transpires that the dispute
between the parties arose out of personal
discord and the same is essentially private
in nature. The compromise entered into
between the parties appears to be
genuine, voluntary and free from any
coercion or undue influence.
12. It is well settled that even in respect
of non-compoundable offences, the High
Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C./Section 528 B.N.S.S., can quash
criminal proceedings where the dispute is
predominantly private in nature and
continuance of such proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of the
Court. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
criminal proceedings involving offences of
personal nature may be quashed where
the parties have amicably settled their
dispute and the ends of justice so require.
Similar principles have been reiterated in
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid

UKHC010159742026

2026:UHC:9482
down the parameters governing exercise of
inherent powers for quashing proceedings
on the basis of compromise.
13. Considering the nature of allegations
levelled in the F.I.R., the amicable
settlement arrived at between the parties
and the categorical stand taken by
respondents/complainant and injured
that they do not wish to prosecute the
matter further, this Court is of the
considered opinion that continuance of
the criminal proceedings would serve no
fruitful purpose and the same would
amount to abuse of the process of law.
14. Accordingly, the compounding
application being I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is
allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
25.02.2026 as well as the entire criminal
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4337 of
2026 (Case Crime/F.I.R. No.89 of 2025)
pending in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun are
hereby quashed.
15. The present C-528 application is,
accordingly, allowed.
16. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.





(Alok Mahra, J.)

15.10.2026
Mamta

MAMTA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e
430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e6
8911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.10.17 11:04:25 +05'30'