Uttarakhand High Court
C528/2310/2025 of JAY PRAKASH RAWAT AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 31 December 2025
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS Compounding Application No. 01 of 2025 In C528/2310/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. M. S. Dhapola, learned counsel for
2025:UHC:11674
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
Compounding Application No. 01 of 2025
In
C528/2310/2025
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. M. S. Dhapola, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
4. Present application has been preferred by Jay Prakash Rawat, Harish Singh Dobal and Prakash Goswami for quashing of the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 69 of 2025 (State Vs. Jay Prakash Rawat and another) pending in the court of Special Sessions Judge, Almora arising out of FIR dated 23.09.2025 bearing FIR No. 0088 of 2025 wherein present applicants are facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 115 (2), 352 of BNS and under Section 3 (1)
(r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station – Kotwali Almora, District – Almora.
5. Present C528 application has been preferred along with compounding application supported with the affidavits of applicants and respondent no. 2 – complainant.
6. Applicants and respondent no. 2 are present in person in the Court and they are duly identified by their respective counsel through their Adhar cards.
7. This Court interacted with the applicants and respondent no. 2 complainant. On interaction, respondent no. 2 – complainant submits that he does not want to proceed with the trial, since he has settled his dispute amicably with the applicants and his relations with the applicants are now cordial.
8. Learned State Counsel submits that though offences punishable under Section 115 (2), 352 of
2025:UHC:11674 BNS, 2023 are compoundable but offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not compoundable.
9. Be that as it may, admittedly, though offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (R) and 3 (1) (S) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not compoundable, but since complainant does not want to pursue the trial, therefore, continuation of the trial is nothing but a futile exercise and as such, offences can be compounded.
10. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that compounding application filed by the parties and the fact that parties have settled their dispute amicably, this Court is of the view that offences are liable to be compounded.
11. Accordingly, application under Section 528 of BNSS and compounding application are allowed. Entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 69 of 2025 (State Vs. Jay Prakash Rawat and another) pending in the court of Special Sessions Judge, Almora arising out of FIR dated 23.09.2025 FIR No. 0088 of 2025 wherein present applicants are facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 115 (2), 352 of BNS and under Section 3 (1)
(r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station – Kotwali Almora, District – Almora are hereby quashed.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 31.12.2025 SKS