Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/946/2026 of RAJKUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 15 July 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010087772026 WPCRL/946/2026 Rajkumar --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey,
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
UKHC010087772026 WPCRL/946/2026
Rajkumar --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate for respondent no. 3/complainant.
4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0106 of 2026, under Sections 351(2) and 69 of BNS, registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun.
5. Now, a compounding application, jointly signed by learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned counsel for the petitioner, has been filed duly supported by affidavits of the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have now entered into a settlement, therefore, the matter needs to be compounded. It is further submitted that both the parties have solemnized their marriage on 12.06.2026 and also applied for registration of their marriage under Section 6
of U.C.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that chargesheet have been filed, but, on instructions, it is informed by learned State Counsel that it has not been filed in the Court and the cognizance has not been taken in the said chargesheet.
7. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that dispute has now been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, his client wants to close the matter to ensure that peace is restored.
8. Today, petitioner and the complainant (respondent no.3) are present before this Court, who are duly identified by their counsels.
9. Both the parties also made a statement that, in view of the settlement, they want to close the matter.
10. Having regard to the nature of offence and also considering the broad guidelines issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs State of Punjab & another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, request of the petitioner deserves to be acceded to.
11. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and, that being so, continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and injustice. Rather, it would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Ends of justice would be met if criminal proceedings are put to an end, because this would allow the parties to translate their decision to live in peace in the reality. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
12. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0106 of 2026, under Sections 351(2) and 69 of BNS, registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, is hereby quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
13. Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Alok Mahra J.)
15.07.2026 Ujjwal