MASAVVAR ALI AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010190462026

2026:UHC:9756
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C528/2353/2026


Masavvar Ali And Others
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Abhishek Joshi and Mr. Ravindra
S. Rawat, learned counsel for the
applicants.
2. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr.
Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holders for
the State.
3. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned
counsel for respondent nos.2 to 6.
4. Present application under Section 528
of the B.N.S.S., has been filed seeking
quashing of the charge-sheet, the
summoning/cognizance order dated
21.12.2019 passed in Criminal Case No.
149 of 2020, arising out of the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 323, 325,
452, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. pending
st
before the Court of learned 1 Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, as
well as the entire proceedings of the
aforesaid criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by
the complainant alleging that a dispute had
arisen between the parties in relation to
painting work, pursuant to which the

UKHC010190462026

2026:UHC:9756
applicants allegedly came armed with
weapons and assaulted the father of
respondent no. 4, causing him injuries. On
the basis of the said allegations, the F.I.R.
was registered, and upon completion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted the charge-sheet 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 incident
occurred due to a sudden scuffle between
the parties, in which both sides sustained
injuries. It is further submitted that,
although the injuries sustained by the
parties were grievous in nature, none of
them was dangerous to life; that, the
dispute arose out of a misunderstanding
between the parties, who reside in the same
locality. He would also submit that cross-
F.I.R.s have been lodged by the parties
against each other in respect of the same
incident, indicating that the dispute arose
out of a mutual altercation, therefore, the
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would serve no useful purpose, particularly
in view of the subsequent amicable
settlement between the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants
would further submit that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and have
decided not to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further. A compounding
application, along with the affidavits of the
parties, has been filed before this Court.
The applicants and the respondents are
present before the Court through video

UKHC010190462026

2026:UHC:9756
conferencing and have been duly identified
by their respective counsel. Upon
interaction with the parties, respondent
nos. 1 to 4 have acknowledged the
settlement and stated that the dispute has
been resolved amicably, that they do not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
against the applicants, and that the
compromise has been entered into
voluntarily, without any force, pressure or
coercion, therefore, the impugned charge-
sheet, summoning/cognizance order and
consequential criminal proceedings be
quashed in view of the amicable settlement.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel
would oppose the application on the ground
that some of the offences alleged against
the applicants are non-compoundable
under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. However,
learned State counsel does not dispute the
factum of the amicable settlement between
the parties or the submission that both
sides sustained grievous injuries in the
incident, none of which was dangerous to
life.
9. Having considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the material available
on record, this Court finds that the dispute
appears to have arisen out of a personal
altercation between the parties in relation
to painting work. The parties have lodged
cross-F.I.R.s in respect of the same
incident, and both sides are stated to have
sustained injuries during the altercation. It
is further evident that the parties have now
amicably resolved their dispute, and the
respondents have expressed their

UKHC010190462026

2026:UHC:9756
unequivocal willingness not to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the
applicants.
10. Although some of the offences alleged
against the applicants are non-
compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.,
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 528 B.N.S.S., is distinct from
the statutory power of compounding
offences. Such jurisdiction may be
exercised to secure the ends of justice,
having regard to the nature and gravity of
the allegations, the circumstances in which
the incident occurred, and the genuineness
of the settlement arrived at between the
parties.
11. In the present case, the dispute
appears to be predominantly personal in
nature, and the parties have voluntarily
settled their differences. Therefore, the
question of quashing the criminal
proceedings is required to be considered in
the light of the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court governing the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction in criminal
matters involving an amicable settlement,
notwithstanding the non-compoundable
nature of certain offences.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC
303 has held that the High Court, in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., is empowered to quash
criminal proceedings in appropriate cases
where the dispute is essentially of a private
and personal nature and the parties have
settled the matter amicably. The said

UKHC010190462026

2026:UHC:9756
principle has been reiterated in Narinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466
and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi
Narayan , (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein it has
been held that criminal proceedings arising
out of personal disputes may be quashed
when the parties have resolved their
differences and the continuation of such
proceedings would amount to an abuse of
the process of the Court.
13. In the present case, the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the
respondents have clearly stated before this
Court that he does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the
applicants. In view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
14. Accordingly, the compounding
application is allowed. Consequently, the
present C-528 application is also allowed.
The charge-sheet and cognizance/
summoning order dated 21.12.2019 passed
in Criminal Case No.149 of 2020, pending
st
in the court of learned 1 Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun are
hereby quashed qua the applicants in terms
of the compromise arrived at between the
parties.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
28.10.2026
Mamta

MAM
TA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f
3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d
67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca
bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26
690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.10.29 15:59:04
+05'30'