Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1376/2026 of JAYANTA KUMAR DEY Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 19 June 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1376/2026 Jayanta Kumar Dey --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Mr. Abhishek Verma,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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
C528/1376/2026
Jayanta Kumar Dey
--Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant appearing through V.C.
2. Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma, learned AGA for the State.
3. Mr. Yuvraj Bhagnagar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5.
4. Instant petition has been preferred under Section of BNS, alongwith compounding application wherein the applicants-Jayanta Kumar Dey, S/o Late Tapan Dey and Suneel Kumar, S/o Roop Singh are praying for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.222 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime No.58 of 2024.
5. Alongwith the compounding application the affidavit of applicants and respondent nos.2 to 5 have also been filed.
6. Respondent nos.2 to 5 are from the same family and head of the family is Mr. Kuksal Jagannath. The applicants as well as respondent nos.2 to 4 are present in the Court and respondent no.5 is appearing through V.C. They all are duly identified by their respective counsel.
7. It is contended in the compounding application that both the offences in which they have now been charge sheeted and facing trial are compoundable since during the investigation Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act has been deleted. It is contended that now the parties have settled their dispute and the respondents, who are present in the Court submits that now they have no grudge with the applicants and does not want to proceed with the trial.
8. On the other hand learned AGA submits that offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable and since now the parties have settled their dispute and respondent/complainant and the victim are not pursing the trial proceedings, therefore, continuation of the trial will be a futile exercise.
9. After hearing the submission as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the parties have settled their dispute and the offence under Section 420 of IPC is compoundable, this Court is of the view that instant C528 petition as well as compounding application deserves to be allowed.
10. In such view of the matter, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.222 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime No.58 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun are quashed and instant petition as well as the compounding application are also disposed of accordingly.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 19.06.2026 Arti