Disposed¶12

Lakhan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC10 Feb 2026WPCRL/109/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPCRL No. 109 of 2026 and WPCRL No. 110 of 2026; quashing of FIR; compounding application allowed; Ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC; S. 318(4) BNS 2023; Article 226 Constitution of India; agreement to sale dated 25.07.2022; P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun; settlement between parties; entire sale consideration refunded/remitted through cheque; land dispute civil in nature; chargesheet not filed; FIRs quashed qua petitioners; Rakesh Thapliyal, J.; decided 10.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions disposed of by allowing the compounding applications; both impugned FIRs — FIR dated 17.12.2024 (FIR No. 377 of 2024 per ¶4; printed as 'FIR No. 337 of 2024' in ¶12) and FIR dated 12.03.2025 (FIR No. 0095 of 2025) — quashed qua the petitioners. ¶12

Lakhan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

¶1

SL. No Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
		WPCRL No. 109 of 2026 With IA 2/2026 (For Compounding Application) WPCRL No. 110 of 2026 With IA 2/2026 (For Compounding Application) Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPCRL No. 109 of 2026. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Ramji Srivastava and Ms. Stuti Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPCRL No. 110 of 2026. 4. These two writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of First Information Reports dated 17.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 377 of 2024 registered at Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC as well as First Information Report dated 12.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0095 of 2025 lodged in the same police station i.e. P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023. The FIR dated 17.12.2024 was lodged by one Rajeev Anand implicating as many as five persons_namely_Lakhan Singh, Jagveer Singh, Mohd. Ikram, Estiyaq and Abdul Kadir and so far as FIR dated 12.03.2025 is concerned the same is lodged by one Lakhan Singh implicating as many as seven persons_namely_Jagveer Singh, Rajeev Anand, Seema Ahluwalia, Rahul Ahluwalia, Jaidev Kakkar, Tanveer Hussain and Mohd. Irfan. 5. The dispute in between the parties is arising out of an agreement to sale dated 25.07.2022 pursuant to which several sale deeds were executed and the allegation was that the seller of the land belongs to the schedule caste community but he sold the land by showing himself as of a general category and apart from this another dispute was that some part of the land was under dispute despite this the sale deed was executed. 6. Now, in both the petitions the compounding applications have been moved with this contention that they have settled their disputes and the entire sale consideration has been refunded back to the purchaser. The owner of the land, who sold the land pursuant to the

¶2

agreement to sale is Mr. Lakhan Singh, who is the petitioner
in WPCRL No. 109 of 2026 and the purchaser to whom the
land was sold out are the petitioners in WPCRL No. 110 of
2026.
7.
Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. submits that
some of the penal provisions are not compoundable but
with the permission of the court the offences can be
compounded, since the dispute appears to be a land dispute
and prima-facie appears to be civil in nature.
8.
So far as lodging of this FIR is concerned admittedly
the parties have settled their disputes and Lakhan Singh the
owner of the land remitted the entire sale consideration to
the purchasers who are the petitioners in WPCRL No. 110 of
2026 and, therefore, initiation of the investigation in respect
of both the FIR is nothing but a futile exercise.
9.
Mr. Lakhan Singh, the petitioner in WPCRL No. 109
of 2026 is present in court and is identified by his counsel
and this court also interact with him and he submits that he
has remitted the entire amount of sale consideration to the
persons to whom he sold the land.
10.
Mr. Rajeev Anand is also present in court along with
one Jaidev Kakkar and two others_namely_Seema Ahluwalia
and Rahul Ahluwalia, who are the petitioners in WPCRL
No. 110 of 2026 also joined the proceeding through V.C. and
on interaction they also submits that they received the entire
sale consideration through cheque and all of them are also
identified by their respective counsels.
11.
After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for
the parties in both the writ petitions, this court is of the view
that prima-facie the dispute appears to be a land dispute
and appears to be civil in nature and furthermore the
parties have settled their disputes and uptill date though
the FIR has been lodged but the chargesheet has not been
filed, therefore, further investigation is nothing but appears
to be a futile exercise and as such this court is of the view
that the compounding applications have to be allowed as
above.
12.
Consequently, both the writ petitions are disposed of
by allowing the compounding applications and both the
impugned FIR i.e FIR dated 17.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 337
of 2024 and FIR dated 12.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0095 of
2025 are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
10.02.2026
PR

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Two First Information Reports sought to be quashed: FIR dated 17.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 377 of 2024 (offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC, lodged by Rajeev Anand) and FIR dated 12.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0095 of 2025 (offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023, lodged by Lakhan Singh).¶4
Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun · 17.12.2024 and 12.03.2025
Prior proceeding
Dispute arises out of an agreement to sale dated 25.07.2022 pursuant to which several sale deeds were executed.¶5
Prior proceeding
Allegations: the seller of the land belongs to the Scheduled Caste community but sold the land showing himself as of general category; some part of the land was under dispute despite which the sale deed was executed.¶5
Prior proceeding
FIR dated 17.12.2024 (No. 377 of 2024) lodged by Rajeev Anand implicating five persons: Lakhan Singh, Jagveer Singh, Mohd. Ikram, Estiyaq and Abdul Kadir.¶4
Prior proceeding
FIR dated 12.03.2025 (No. 0095 of 2025) lodged by Lakhan Singh implicating seven persons: Jagveer Singh, Rajeev Anand, Seema Ahluwalia, Rahul Ahluwalia, Jaidev Kakkar, Tanveer Hussain and Mohd. Irfan.¶4
Prior proceeding
Compounding applications moved in both petitions on the contention that the parties have settled their disputes and the entire sale consideration has been refunded to the purchaser.¶6
Prior proceeding
Learned A.G.A. submitted that some penal provisions are not compoundable but offences can be compounded with the permission of the court, the dispute being prima facie a civil land dispute.¶7
Prior proceeding
Owner Lakhan Singh remitted the entire sale consideration to the purchasers (petitioners in WPCRL No. 110 of 2026); initiation of investigation stated to be a futile exercise.¶8
Prior proceeding
Lakhan Singh, petitioner in WPCRL No. 109 of 2026, present in court, identified by counsel, interacted with the court and confirmed remission of the entire sale consideration.¶9
Prior proceeding
Purchaser-petitioners (Rajeev Anand present; Jaidev Kakkar, Seema Ahluwalia, Rahul Ahluwalia through V.C.) interacted and confirmed receipt of the entire sale consideration through cheque; all identified by their counsels.¶10
Prior proceeding
As on the date of the order, though the FIRs have been lodged, the chargesheet has not been filed.¶11

Lakhan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhan Singh Aias Lucky Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yogita Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Singh Alias Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chheda Lal Vs Bank of India

Kalpana Lohumi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shahban Vs State of Uttarakhand