Kangna Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS

2025:UHC:9239

WPCRL No.1264 of 2025 With (Compromise Appl. No.01 of 2025) Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the Petitioner

¶2Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned AGA for the State.

¶3Ms. Aishwarya Thapliyal, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.5 & 6.

¶4Present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is currently in jail, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alongwith compounding application and the same is supported with the affidavits of petitioner and respondent nos.5 & 6.

¶5Petitioner, is being represented through his brother-Sukhsimratpal, son of Ninder Singh.

¶6Brother of the petitioner as well as respondent nos.5 & 6 are present in the Court. They are duly identified by their respective counsel.

¶7By means of this writ petition, petitioner, who is in jail currently, has sought quashing of the impugned FIR dated 14.08.2025 registered as FIR/Case Crime No.10 of 2025 under Section 109, 190, 191 (2), 191 (3), 351 (2), 351(3) of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Betalghat, District Nainital. Further prayer has been made to direct the Jailor, Nainital Jail to release the petitioner from jail forthwith in pursuance of aforesaid FIR.

¶8Petitioner has made his appearance through V.C. from District Jail, Nainital with the help of Jailor, District Jail, Nainital and is being identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9Before lunch, petitioner's brother Sukhsimratpal Pal Singh had made appearance on his behalf, who had submitted a document as Annexure 1 stating therein that parties have come into the terms of compromise.

¶10For ascertaining the identity and the contention, the Jail authorities were asked to produce the petitioner through V.C.

¶11Learned counsel for the parties have filed their respective affidavits along with the compounding application stating therein that they do not wish to pursue the present criminal case any further and a compromise has been entered between them.

¶12Learned State counsel has opposed the compromise application and submits that some of the offences are not compoundable.

¶13Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶14In view of the principle of law laid down by Ho'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012

(10) SCC 303, criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court, if this Court is satisfied that matter has been settled between the parties amicably and parties are interest to restore peace and harmony between them.

¶15Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the above, the compromise application is allowed. The impugned FIR dated 14.08.2025 registered as FIR/Case Crime No.10 of 2025 under Section 109, 190, 191 (2), 191 (3), 351 (2), 351(3) of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Betalghat, District Nainital is hereby quashed.

¶16The Jailor, Sub Jail, Nainital is directed to release the petitioner-Amritpal @ Pannu forthwith without any condition in case he is not wanted in any other case.

¶17Accordingly instant writ petition stands disposed of.

(Ashish Naithani, J.)

15.10.2025 Arti

ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69ctid, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.10.15 17:20:07 +05'30'