Disposed¶9

Ankit Rathore v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 May 2026C528/20/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C-528 criminal application, Uttarakhand High Court, decided 02.05.2026 by Alok Mahra, J.: quashing of charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 18.01.2019 and entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.49 of 2019 (Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar) upon compounding of offence between the parties pursuant to compromise; complainant's affidavit affirming compromise; F.I.R. lodged due to misunderstanding; State opposition; offences compounded; trial proceedings quashed; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Compounding application allowed; offences between the parties permitted to be compounded; entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.49 of 2019 (Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar) quashed. ¶9

Ankit Rathore Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 18.01.2019 and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.49 of 2019 can be set aside/quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

As a result of the compounding, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.49 of 2019, pending in the Court of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are quashed.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where a compromise between the parties renders the possibility of conviction remote and bleak, the compounding application is allowed and the offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded.

¶8

Key takeaways

The C-528 application stands disposed of.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uttarakhand High Court (Alok Mahra, J.), C-528 No. 20 of 2026, decided 02.05.2026 — Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise/compounding. The applicant sought setting aside of the charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 18.01.2019 and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.49 of 2019 pending before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. A compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) was filed; the complainant swore an affidavit affirming the compromise, respondent no.2 stated the F.I.R. arose out of a misunderstanding, while State counsel opposed. Following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations that where a compromise renders the possibility of conviction remote and bleak, continuation of proceedings would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused, the Court permitted the offences to be compounded and quashed the entire trial proceedings; the C-528 application was disposed of.

¶1

No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			C528 No.20 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Rishabh Bisht, Advocate for respondent no.2.
			2. Present C-528 application is filed with the prayer to set-aside/quash the impugned charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 18.01.2019 and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.49 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of compromise between the parties. 3. Compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) is also filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offence between the parties. 4. Applicant and respondent no.2 are present before the Court today, who have been duly identified by their learned counsel. It is submitted that the complainant has already filed an affidavit in support of the compounding application, affirming the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties.
			5. Itis jointly submitted that all

¶2

disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably settled and resolved. Respondent no.2 submits that, due to some misunderstand the F.I.R. was lodged.
6. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the compounding application.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of its judgments, has observed that in
cases where because of the compromise
arrived at between the parties,
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings as continuation of the same would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused.
8. Following the aforesaid ratio,
present compounding application is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.49 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh, are hereby quashed.
9. C-528 application stands disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 02.05.2026 Arpan

¶3

ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.02 17:58:26 +05'30'

Ankit Rathore v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Rathore v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Kumar Alias Bhola Narang Vs Rajni

Priyanka Chaudhary Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vishal Anand Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deen Mohammad Alias Dinna Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajkumar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand