Allowed¶8

Tauheed Beg and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Jun 2026C528/634/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court; C-528 application No.634 of 2026; compromise between parties; compounding of offences; affidavit of complainant affirming compromise; State counsel opposition; possibility of conviction remote and bleak; High Court power to quash criminal proceedings following Supreme Court ratio; charge sheet dated 23.06.2025; cognizance/summoning order dated 11.11.2025; Criminal Case No.2351 of 2025; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar; proceedings quashed; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) allowed; offences between the parties permitted to be compounded; charge sheet dated 23.06.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 11.11.2025 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2351 of 2025 quashed; C-528 application stands disposed of. ¶8

Tauheed Beg and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the charge sheet dated 23.06.2025, the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.11.2025 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2351 of 2025 may be quashed. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Following the catena of Supreme Court judgments, where because of the compromise between the parties the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings, as their continuation would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The compounding application is allowed and the offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded.

¶8

Key takeaways

As a consequence of the compounding, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2351 of 2025, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, are quashed.ratio¶8
The C-528 application stands disposed of.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C-528 No.634 of 2026, High Court of Uttarakhand (Alok Mahra, J.), decided 02.06.2026 — Quashing on compounding: Applicants sought setting aside of the charge sheet dated 23.06.2025, the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.11.2025 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2351 of 2025 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of a compromise between the parties, alongside a compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026). Applicants and respondent nos.2 & 3 appeared and were identified by counsel; the complainant affirmed the compromise by affidavit. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed compounding. Relying on the catena of Supreme Court rulings that where the compromise renders the possibility of conviction remote and bleak, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings as their continuation would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused, the Court allowed the compounding application, permitted the offences to be compounded, and quashed the entirety of Criminal Case No.2351 of 2025; the C-528 application stood disposed of.

¶1

2026:UHC:4405

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.634 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Suraiya Naaz, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Anmol Sandhu, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. Present C-528 application is filed with the prayer to set-aside/quash the charge sheet dated 23.06.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 11.11.2025 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2351 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 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. Applicants as well as respondent nos.2 & 3 are present before the Court today who have been duly identified by their learned counsel. It is further 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. It is jointly submitted that all disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably settled and resolved.

¶3

2026:UHC:4405

¶4

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 Criminal Case No.2351 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
9. C-528 application stands disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 02.06.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20 dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB 987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.06.02 16:07:49 +05'30'

Tauheed Beg and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tauheed Beg and Ors. 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

Bhawna Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vipul Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sbfc Finance Ltd. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nitin Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Himanshu Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Satveer Singh Virok Vs State of Uttarakhand