Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1278/2026 of FARMAN ALIAS MANGTA AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 5 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/1278/2026 Farman Alias Mangta And Ors --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPCRL/1278/2026 Farman Alias Mangta And Ors --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel for complainant and victim.
2. By means of the present Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the F.I.R. dated 28.06.2026, registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No. 262 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. A Compounding Application, jointly signed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent no. 3, who is the complainant and victim, duly supported by the affidavits of the petitioners as well as respondent no. 3 and victim, has been filed before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that all disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved and that respondent no. 3 has no grievance whatsoever against the petitioners.
5. Learned State Counsel opposed the prayer for compounding and submitted that the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature. However, he fairly submitted that, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the matter may be considered by this Court in accordance with law while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction.
6. Today, the petitioners, respondent no. 3 and victim are present before this Court through video conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel.
7. Respondent no. 3 has categorically stated before this Court that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. She has further stated that she has no objection if the impugned F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
8. A perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the allegations primarily arise out of a personal dispute between the parties. Prima facie, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 do not appear to be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes. Respondent no. 3 does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
10. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6
SCC 466; and Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 13 SCC 671, wherein it has been held that even in cases involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the High Court may, in appropriate cases arising out of personal disputes where the offence does not have a serious impact on society and the essential ingredients of the offences under the Act are not made out, exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served by quashing the impugned F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. The F.I.R. dated 28.06.2026, registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No. 262 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.
12. Consequently, the Compounding Application stands disposed of.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 05-08-2026 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=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5db a6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40 bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C5 2796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D 205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.08.05 16:36:49 +05'30'