Naseema and Ors v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

WPCRL/1320/2026

Naseema And Ors --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Mr. N.S. Kanyal and Mr. Pramod Tewari, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Ms. Pooja Rana, Advocate for respondent nos.3 to 7.

¶2By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought quashing of F.I.R./Case Crime No.198 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352, 74 & 75 of B.N.S., 2023, registered at Police Station Manglour, District Haridwar.

¶3A compounding application, jointly signed by counsel for respondent nos.3 to 7 and counsel for the petitioners has been filed duly supported by affidavits of the petitioners and respondent nos.3 to 7.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have entered into settlement, therefore, the matter needs to be compounded.

¶5Learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 7 submits that dispute has now

been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, his clients want to close the matter to ensure that peace is restored.

¶6Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application.

¶7Today, petitioners and respondent nos.3 to 7 are present before the Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsels.

¶8Both the parties also made a statement that, in view of the settlement, they want to close the matter.

¶9Having 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 petitioners deserves to be acceded to.

¶10Since 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. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to burry the hatchet for all times to come. 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.

¶11In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. F.I.R./Case Crime No.198 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352, 74 & 75 of B.N.S., 2023, registered at Police Station Manglour, District Haridwar, is hereby quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶12Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Alok Mahra, J.)

14.07.2026 Arpan

ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C510 9CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.07.14 16:18:08 +05'30'