Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1237/2026 of MOHIT 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/1237/2026 Mohit --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
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/1237/2026 Mohit --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
2. By means of the present Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 22.06.2026, registered as F.I.R. No. 133 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Kaliyar Shareef, District Haridwar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. A Compounding Application, jointly signed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent no. 3, duly supported by the affidavits of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3, has been filed before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that the F.I.R. came to be lodged due to certain misunderstandings between the parties. It is further submitted that all disputes between them have now been amicably resolved and respondent no. 3 has no grievance whatsoever against the petitioner.
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 petitioner and respondent no. 3 are present before this Court 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. It is also brought on record that both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 are students and are pursuing their studies. The dispute appears to have arisen out of personal differences and misunderstandings between them, which now stand amicably resolved. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings to continue.
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 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, 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 in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. The F.I.R. dated 22.06.2026, registered as F.I.R. No. 133 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Kaliyar Shareef, 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=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b 5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D 7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.08.05 16:36:25 +05'30'