Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/958/2026 of KARAN KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 27 May 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 No. 958 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Sweta Badola
2026:UHC:4213
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPCRL No. 958 of 2026
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
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.
1. Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Vishal Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. The petitioner Karan Kumar S/o Idal Singh moved this petition for quashing of FIR dated 05.05.2026 bearing FIR No. 109 of 2026, wherein he has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the BNS, 2023.
3. This petition has been filed along with Compounding Application (IA No. 1 of 2026) with affidavits of respondent nos. 3 and 4. The respondent no.3 is the complainant and the respondent no. 4 is her daughter.
4. The respondent no.3 lodged the FIR for missing of his daughter, the respondent no.4.
5. Now the petitioner as well as the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are present in Court and they are identified by their counsel.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that due to some misunderstanding, the FIR has been lodged and in fact the respondent no.4 left for her
2026:UHC:4213 sister’s house. The petitioner is the brother of the sister’s husband. It is submitted that the complainant does not want to proceed with the impugned FIR since no such incident was happened, therefore, the FIR be quashed.
7. On the other side, learned Brief Holder for the State submits that though the offence is not compoundable but the victim now traced out and now she is with her mother and now since the complainant is not pursuing with the impugned FIR, there is no useful purpose to go with the investigation pursuant to the impugned FIR.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the parties have settled their disputes and nothing untoward incident was happened with the missing daughter of the complainant, there is no useful purpose to go with the investigation.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition as well as the compounding application are allowed and the impugned FIR is also hereby quashed.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
27.05.2026
Shiv/