Allowed¶8

Dulli Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Jun 2026C528/739/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compounding of offence; quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise/settlement; amicable settlement outside Court; affidavit of respondent no.2 affirming compromise; opposition by State Counsel; Supreme Court catena — conviction remote and bleak, High Court may quash; Criminal Case No.3738 of 2017; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur; District Udham Singh Nagar; charge sheet dated 26.08.2017; cognizance/summoning order dated 30.08.2017; C-528 No.739 of 2026; I.A. No.2 of 2026; Alok Mahra, J.; 01.06.2026; Uttarakhand High Court; 2026:UHC:4340.

What did the court decide?

Compounding application (I.A. No.2 of 2026) allowed; offences between the parties permitted to be compounded; entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3738 of 2017 quashed; C-528 application stands disposed of accordingly. ¶8

Dulli Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 26.08.2017, the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.08.2017 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3738 of 2017 can be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Where, because of the compromise arrived at 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 (position observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, followed by this Court).

¶7

Ratio / Principle

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

¶8

Key takeaways

As a result of the compounding, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3738 of 2017, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are quashed.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uttarakhand High Court (Alok Mahra, J.), C-528 No.739 of 2026, decided 01.06.2026: On the basis of an amicable settlement reached outside the Court through mutual consent, with respondent no.2 affirming the compromise by affidavit and stating that he did not wish to pursue or prosecute the proceedings, and despite opposition by learned State Counsel, the Court — following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations that where a compromise renders the possibility of conviction remote and bleak the High Court may quash criminal proceedings to avoid prejudice and injustice to the accused — allowed the compounding application (I.A. No.2 of 2026), permitted the offences between the parties to be compounded, and quashed the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3738 of 2017 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (the proceedings challenged via the charge sheet dated 26.08.2017 and cognizance/summoning order dated 30.08.2017). The C-528 application was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2026:UHC:4340

¶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.739 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2.
			2. Present C-528 application is filed with the prayer to set-aside/quash the charge sheet dated 26.08.2017, cognizance/summoning order dated 30.08.2017 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3738 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of compromise between the parties. 3. Compounding application (I.A. No.2 of 2026) is also filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offence between the parties.
			4. Applicant as well as respondent no.2 are present in Court today, who have been duly identified by their learned counsel. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 has already filed affidavit in support of the compounding application, affirming the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. It is jointly submitted by the parties that all disputes and differences arising between them have been amicably settled and resolved outside the Court

¶3

2026:UHC:4340

¶4

through mutual consent. In view of the
amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the resolution of all their disputes, respondent no.2 has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue or prosecute the present criminal proceedings against the applicant and has no objection if the same are brought to an end in accordance with law.
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.3738 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
9. C-528 application stands disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 01.06.2026 Arpan

Dulli Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dulli Singh 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

Brahmchari Sudhanand Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jeevan Singh Khetwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Modern Fashion Boutique Vs Sushma Sharma

Bhawna Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vipul Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sbfc Finance Ltd. Vs State of Uttarakhand