Manish and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Jul 2026WPCRL/1272/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court; WPCRL/1272/2026 (UKHC010117422026); Manish And Ors versus State Of Uttarakhand And Others; quashing of FIR on settlement/compounding; F.I.R./Case Crime No. 586 of 2025; IPC Sections 120-B, 386, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471; Police Station Gangnahar; District Haridwar; joint compounding application with affidavits; parties present and identified in Court; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; conviction remote and bleak; oppression, prejudice, injustice; abuse of process of law; FIR quashed with all proceedings; compounding application disposed; Alok Mahra J.; decided 08.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; F.I.R./Case Crime No. 586 of 2025 (IPC Sections 120-B, 386, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471) registered at Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar, quashed along with all proceedings emanating therefrom; compounding application disposed of.

SL.
No.

Date

Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

UKHC010117422026
WPCRL/1272/2026
Manish And Ors
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
And Others
--Respondent
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for
the petitioners.

2.
Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Brief Holder for the
State.

3.
Mr. Pankaj Semwal, Advocate for the
respondent no. 3.

4.
By
means
of
this
writ
petition,
petitioners
have
sought
quashing
of
F.I.R./Case Crime No. 586 of 2025, under
Sections 120-B, 386, 419, 420, 467, 468 and
471 of IPC, registered at Police Station
Gangnahar, District Haridwar.

5.
In this case, an FIR was lodged by
respondent no. 3 against the petitioners,
under Sections 120-B, 386, 419, 420, 467,
468 and 471 of IPC, which was registered at
Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar.
6.
Now, a compounding application, jointly
signed by learned counsel for respondent no.3
and learned counsel for the petitioners, has
been filed duly supported by affidavits of the
parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the parties have now entered into a settlement, therefore, the matter needs
to be compounded.
8. Learned counsel for respondent no.3
submits that dispute has now been amicably
settled between the parties, therefore, his client wants to close the matter to ensure that peace is restored.
9. Today, petitioners and the complainant
(respondent no.3) are present before this
Court, who are duly identified by their
counsels.
10. Both the parties also made a statement
that, in view of the settlement, they want to
close the matter.
11. Having regard to the nature of offence
and also considering the broad guidelines
issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh &
others Vs State of Punjab & another reported
in (2014) 6 SCC 466, request of the
petitioners deserve to be acceded to.
12. Since the parties have entered into a
compromise, therefore, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is
remote and bleak and, that being so,
continuation of criminal proceedings would
visit the accused with great oppression,
prejudice and injustice. Rather, it would
tantamount to abuse of process of law. Ends of justice would be met if criminal proceedings
are put to an end, because this would allow
the parties to translate their decision to live in
peace in the reality. Resolution of a dispute by
way of a compromise between two warring
groups, therefore, should attract the
immediate andprompt attention of a Court

7.
Learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the parties have now entered
into a settlement, therefore, the matter needs

to be compounded.

8.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3

submits that dispute has now been amicably

settled between the parties, therefore, his
client wants to close the matter to ensure that
peace is restored.

9.
Today, petitioners and the complainant

(respondent no.3) are present before this

Court, who are duly identified by their

counsels.

10. Both the parties also made a statement

that, in view of the settlement, they want to

close the matter.

11. Having regard to the nature of offence

and also considering the broad guidelines

issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in

(2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh &

others Vs State of Punjab & another reported

in (2014) 6 SCC 466, request of the

petitioners deserve to be acceded to.

12. Since the parties have entered into a

compromise, therefore, possibility of the trial
resulting into conviction of the accused is

remote and bleak and, that being so,

continuation of criminal proceedings would

visit the accused with great oppression,

prejudice and injustice. Rather, it would

tantamount to abuse of process of law. Ends
of justice would be met if criminal proceedings

are put to an end, because this would allow

the parties to translate their decision to live in

peace in the reality. Resolution of a dispute by

way of a compromise between two warring

groups,
therefore,
should
attract
the

immediate andprompt attention of a Court

which should endeavour to give full effect to
the same unless such compromise is
abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
13. In view of above discussion, the writ
petition is allowed. Consequently, F.I.R./Case Crime No. 586 of 2025, under Sections 120-B, 386, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC,
registered at Police Station Gangnahar,
District Haridwar, is hereby quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
14. Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Alok Mahra J.) 08.07.2026 Ujjwal

which should endeavour to give full effect to

the
same
unless
such
compromise
is

abhorrent to lawful composition of the society
or would promote savagery.

13. In view of above discussion, the writ

petition is allowed. Consequently, F.I.R./Case
Crime No. 586 of 2025, under Sections 120-B,
386, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC,

registered
at
Police
Station
Gangnahar,

District Haridwar, is hereby quashed along
with all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

14. Compounding
application
is,
accordingly, disposed of.

(Alok Mahra J.)
08.07.2026
Ujjwal

Manish and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Sarkar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Suhana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun

Munne Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Thapadi Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand