2025:UHC:7295 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS IA No.02 of 2025 (Compromise Application) In WPCRL No. 875 of 2025 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioners. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Abhishek Dutt, learned counsel for Respondent no.3. 4. The present writ petition (criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on behalf of the Petitioners, Gurkeerat Aulakh S/o Sh. Baldev Singh Aulakh, Zorawar S/o Sh. Deen Dayal Singh Bhullar and Hamid S/o Name Ali against the Respondent in particular Respondent no.3, Mohd. Rafique S/o Haseet Ullah, who is the complainant; the present writ petition comes with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. No.112 of 2025 pertaining to offence under Section 140 of BNS registered at P.S. Kelakheda, District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. The Compromise Application (IA No.02 of 2025) is also annexed with the present writ petition (page no. 27) that is supported with the affidavits of the parties and the said application is being endorsed by the learned counsel for the Applicants and Respondent no.3, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Dutt, Advocate respectively. 6. The Petitioners, Gurkeerat Aulakh, Zorawar 2025:UHC:7295 and Hamid and Respondent No.3, Mohd. Rafique are present before this Court, who are identified by their respective counsel. 7. After interacting with the parties especially with Respondent no.3, Mohd. Rafique the complainant makes a statement that the son of the Respondent no.3 was not kidnapped by the petitioners and he is very well living with the respondent no.3 and respondent no.3 had lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioners on saying of some group of persons who had told that the son of the respondent no.3 has been kidnapped, in fact he was not kidnapped; the FIR was lodged under the pressure, therefore, the respondent no.3 does not want any prosecution of the petitioners. 8. On query of this Court, Respondent no.3/complainant makes a submission that he was taken by somebody, whom he does not know and indicating to the petitioners standing just behind him. Respondent no.3 denies their presence and make statement that these are not the persons, who took him and in this context, he wishes to compound the matter with the present petitioners and also does not want to proceed with the matter further, therefore, the proceedings and other consequential order arising out of the F.I.R. in question may be quashed whereas learned State counsel poses his formal objection in this regard. 9. In view of the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of “Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab” reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 2025:UHC:7295 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court, if this Court is satisfied with the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the entire proceedings against qua the Petitioners are hereby quashed. 11. In view of the above, the compromise application is allowed. The F.I.R. No.112 of 2025 pertaining to offence under Section 140 of BNS registered at P.S. Kelakheda, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed qua the petitioners. 12. The present writ petition (criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, thus, disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 19.08.2025 Akash