The High Court allowed the quashing application and quashed the chargesheet and summoning orders in a criminal case involving allegations of assault arising from a personal dispute, noting an amicable settlement between the parties.
The impugned chargesheet, cognizance/summoning orders and entire criminal proceedings were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:UHC:4409
| SL. No. |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| C528/1212/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. G.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants. |
|||
| 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Ms. Sujata Chand, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3/complainant. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned chargesheet, cognizance/summoning orders dated 04.11.2025 and 04.12.2025 in Criminal Case No.1146 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, under Sections 115 (2), 117(2), 117(3), 191(2), 331(6), 331(7), 351(3), 352 B.N.S. as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. |
|||
| 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the first informant lodged the F.I.R. alleging therein that on 22.10.2024, while he was present in the room of respondent no.3, certain students allegedly entered the room and, thereafter, the present applicants along with some other unknown persons assaulted him with sticks, stones and other objects, as a result of which he sustained injuries. It is alleged that due to the nature of the injuries suffered, the injured persons were referred to AIIMS, Rishikesh for medical treatment. Upon completion of the |
2026:UHC:4409
| investigation, the Investigating Officer |
|---|
| submitted the charge-sheet against the |
| applicants, whereupon the learned trial |
| court took cognizance and summoned the |
| applicants to face trial. |
| 6. It is further submitted that during |
| the pendency of the criminal proceedings, |
| the first informant unfortunately passed |
away on 27.03.2026 on account of a |
| serious illness, which was wholly |
unconnected with the incident in |
| question. It is also submitted that, with |
| the intervention of respected members of |
| society, relatives and well-wishers, the |
| parties have amicably resolved their |
| disputes and differences. In pursuance |
| thereof, a joint compounding/compromise |
| application supported by the affidavits of |
| the applicants and the injured persons |
| has been filed before this Court, wherein it |
| has been categorically stated that the |
| compromise has been entered into |
| voluntarily, out of their own free will, |
| without any coercion, pressure or undue |
| influence from any quarter, and that they |
| no longer wish to pursue the criminal |
| proceedings against the applicants. |
| 7. The applicants as well as the injured |
| persons are present before the Court and |
| have been duly identified by their |
| respective counsel. Upon being interacted |
| with, the injured persons have affirmed |
| the factum of compromise and stated that |
| the settlement has been arrived at |
| voluntarily and amicably. They have |
| further stated that they have no grievance |
| against the applicants and have no |
| objection if the impugned proceedings are |
| quashed bythis Court in exercise of its |
2026:UHC:4409
inherent jurisdiction. 8. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the material available on record. The injured persons are present before the Court and have categorically stated that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties out of their own free will and without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. They have further stated that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further and have no objection if the proceedings in question are quashed. 9. The legal position governing quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise is well settled. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now corresponding provisions under the B.N.S.S.), may quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the dispute is predominantly private and personal in nature and where continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, provided the offences do not have a serious impact on society or involve heinous crimes. 10. In Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down broad parameters for exercising inherent powers in cases settled between the parties and observed that where the possibility of
2026:UHC:4409
| conviction is remote and bleak on account |
|---|
| of settlement, and continuation of criminal |
| proceedings would cause oppression and |
| prejudice to the accused, the High Court |
| may quash the proceedings in order to |
| secure the ends of justice. |
| 11. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi |
| Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble |
Supreme Court reiterated that criminal |
| proceedings arising out of personal |
| disputes may be quashed on the basis of |
| compromise, except in cases involving |
| heinous and serious offences having grave |
| societal impact. Similarly, in Parbatbhai |
| Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur |
| v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the |
| Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the |
| principles governing the exercise of |
| inherent jurisdiction and emphasized that |
| the Court must examine whether |
| continuation of proceedings would serve |
| any useful purpose and whether quashing |
| would secure the ends of justice. |
| 12. In the present case, the allegations |
| arise out of a personal dispute between |
| the parties. The injured persons have |
| entered into an amicable settlement with |
| the applicants and have expressed their |
| unwillingness to pursue the matter |
| further. The offences alleged are not of |
| such nature as to affect society at large or |
| involve any overriding public interest. |
| Furthermore, in view of the compromise |
| arrived at between the parties, the |
| possibility of securing a conviction |
| appears remote. Continuation of the |
| criminal proceedings, therefore, would |
| result in unnecessary harassment to the |
| parties and would serve no fruitful |
2026:UHC:4409
| purpose. 13.Accordingly, having regard to the nature of the dispute, the compromise entered into between the parties, and the |
|---|
| law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme |
| Court in the aforesaid decisions, this |
| Court is of the considered view that |
| continuation of the criminal proceedings |
| would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the |
| compounding/compromise application is |
| allowed. The present C-528 application |
| also stands allowed. The impugned |
| charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning orders dated 04.11.2025 and 04.12.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 1146 of 2025 pending before the Court of learned |
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, |
| Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, |
| under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 117(3), |
| 191(2), 331(6), 331(7), 351(3) and 352 |
| B.N.S., as well as the entire proceedings of |
| the aforesaid criminal case, are hereby |
| quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. |
| 14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.06.2026 Mamta |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under its inherent power when a settlement is reached in a case involving personal dispute and non-heinous offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶9
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of PunjabApplied¶9
Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi NarayanApplied¶11
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of GujaratApplied¶11
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Applicants
Respondents 2 & 3
Alok Mahra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
