Uttarakhand High Court
C482/319/2021 of YOGESH VASHISTHA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 9 January 2026
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 319 of 2021 Yogesh Vashistha ...... Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Harsh Rautela, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.N. Molekhi, D.A.G. for the
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.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 319 of 2021
Yogesh Vashistha
...... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Harsh Rautela, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.N. Molekhi, D.A.G. for the State. Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bohra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to an order taking cognizance dated 09.07.2019, passed in Case No. 861 of 2019, Raghvendra Sikhola Vs. Yogesh Vashistha and others, by the court of Judicial Magistrate/3rd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar (“the case”), by which, the petitioners have been summoned to answer the accusations under Section 500 IPC. The challenge has further been made to judgment and order dated 09.02.2021, passed in Criminal Revision No. 606 of 2019, Yogesh Vashistha and others Vs. Raghvendra Sikhola and another, by the court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, by which cognizance order passed in the case has been upheld.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. During the pendency of petition, the parties have filed a joint Compounding Application No. 4 of 2025 alongwith their affidavits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have settled their dispute amicably and while quashing the summoning order, the proceedings of the case may be quashed.
5. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and respondent no.2 have joined the proceedings through video conferencing as identified by their respective counsel. The petitioner no.3 is present in person before this Court identified by his counsel. Learned counsel for the parties have accepted the terms of compromise entered into between the parties.
6. The Court particularly asked the respondent no.2, informant. He submits that he has settled the dispute with the petitioners and he does not want to proceed with the case.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case which may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.
8. The petition is allowed. The impugned ccognizance order dated 09.07.2019, passed in Case No. 861 of 2019, Raghvendra Sikhola Vs. Yogesh Vashistha and others, the judgment and order dated 09.02.2021, passed in Criminal Revision No. 606 of 2019,
Yogesh Vashistha and others Vs. Raghvendra Sikhola and another, as well as the entire proceedings of the case are hereby quashed.
9. Compounding application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
09.01.2026 Jitendra