Allowed¶10

Parikshit Chaudhary v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Jul 2026WPCRL/1280/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise/settlement; compounding of criminal proceedings; Sections 125 BNS and Section 5/27 Arms Act; Case Crime No.124 of 2026, P.S. Bahadrabad, District Haridwar; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; abuse of process; ends of justice; Uttarakhand High Court 2026; Alok Mahra, J.; WPCRL/1280/2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; F.I.R./Case Crime No.124 of 2026 (Sections 125 B.N.S.; Section 5/27 Arms Act, P.S. Bahadrabad, District Haridwar) quashed along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, qua the petitioner; compounding application disposed of. ¶10

Parikshit Chaudhary Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether F.I.R./Case Crime No.124 of 2026 (under Sections 125 of B.N.S. and Section 5/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar) and the proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed/compounded in view of the amicable settlement between the petitioner and respondent nos.3 & 4.

¶4

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the offence, and applying the broad guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others (2014) 6 SCC 466, the petitioner's request (for quashing/compounding in view of the settlement) deserved to be acceded to.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Since the parties entered into a compromise, the possibility of the trial resulting in conviction of the accused is remote and bleak; continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and injustice and would tantamount to abuse of process of law; ends of justice would be met if the criminal proceedings are put to an end.

¶9

Key takeaways

The writ petition is allowed; F.I.R./Case Crime No.124 of 2026, under Sections 125 of B.N.S. and Section 5/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, stands quashed along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, qua the petitioner.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uttarakhand High Court (Writ Petition (Crl.) WPCRL/1280/2026, decided 09.07.2026, Alok Mahra, J.): Where the petitioner and respondent nos.3 & 4 in Case Crime No.124 of 2026 (Sections 125 B.N.S.; Section 5/27 Arms Act, P.S. Bahadrabad, District Haridwar) entered into an amicable settlement, filed a joint compounding application supported by affidavits, appeared via video conferencing and stated they wished to close the matter, the Court — guided by the broad Apex Court guidelines in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 — held that a post-compromise conviction was remote and bleak, that continued prosecution would oppress the accused and amount to abuse of process of law, and accordingly quashed the F.I.R. and all proceedings emanating therefrom qua the petitioner; the compounding application was disposed of.

¶1

UKHC010118172026

¶2

2026:UHC:5598

¶3

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/1280/2026
			Parikshit Chaudhary --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
			Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan and Mr. Pramod Kumar Tewari, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Abhishek Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos.3 & 4.
			2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R./Case Crime No.124 of 2026, under Sections 125 of B.N.S. and Section 5/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. 3. A compounding application, jointly signed by counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 and counsel for the petitioner has been filed duly supported by affidavits of the petitioner and respondent nos.3 & 4.
			4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have entered into settlement, therefore, the matter needs to be compounded.
			5. Learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 submits that dispute has now beenamicably settled betweenthe parties,

¶4

UKHC010118172026

¶5

2026:UHC:5598

¶6

therefore, his clients want to close the matter to ensure that peace is restored. 6. Today, petitioner and respondent nos.3 & 4 joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing, who are duly identified by their respective counsels. 7. Both the parties also made a statement that, in view of the settlement, they want to close the matter. 8. 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 petitioner deserves to be acceded to. 9. 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. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to burry the hatchet for all times to come. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the

¶7

UKHC010118172026

¶8

2026:UHC:5598

¶9

society or would promote savagery.
10. In view of above discussion, the writ
petition is allowed. F.I.R./Case Crime
No.124 of 2026, under Sections 125 of
B.N.S. and Section 5/27 of Arms Act,
registered at Police Station Bahadrabad,
District Haridwar, is hereby quashed
along with all the proceedings emanating
therefrom, qua the petitioner.
11. Compounding application is,
accordingly, disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
09.07.2026
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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.07.09 16:59:42 +05'30'

Parikshit Chaudhary v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parikshit Chaudhary 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

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun

Munne Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Thapadi Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sadhvi Renuka(Richa) Vs State of Uttarakhand

Juneja Dilawar Vs State of Uttarakhand