SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r epor t s, or ders or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2025:UHC:10799 IA No.1/ 2025 (Compounding Application) with C528 No.1789 of 2025 Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J. Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand/1. 3. Ms. Shweta Jain, learned counsel for the private Respondents. 4. In the present Application filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the Applicant has put a challenge to the entire proceedings of Investigation No.70 of 2025, “State Vs. Sameer Sehgal” under Sections 323, 342, 364, 504 and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act against the Applicant, which is pending before the learned Juvenile Justice Board Dehradun. 5. Parties are present in person before this Court along with their learned counsel, who has been duly identified by their learned counsel. 6. There is a compounding application filed on behalf of the parties as Paper No.38, wherein, both the parties i.e. Revisionist and the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have annexed their signatures and duly endorsed by the learned counsel for the parties. The application is also supported with an affidavit of the parties. 7. Today, the matter is listed for disposal of the aforesaid compounding application. 8. Applicants as well as the private Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are present before this Court and are being identified by the learned counsel. As per the compounding application, there is a joint submissions on behalf of the Applicants as well as the private Respondent Nos.2 and 4 that the incident happened due to misunderstanding, and now they have reconciled the matter and have come into the terms of the compromise and hence the compounding application may be allowed and the matter may be disposed of accordingly. 9. After interacting with the parties, especially the victim/Respondent Nos.2 to 4, this Court is of the considered view that the grounds for compounding are sufficient, though the said compounding application is being opposed on behalf of the learned State Counsel with a contention that the matter is of serious in nature, and offences are non compoundable. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case, and particularly, the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably, this Court finds ground sufficient for allowing the compounding application. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. 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 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 that matter has been settled between the parties amicably and parties are interested to restore peace and harmony between them. 13. In view of the above, the compounding application is allowed. The entire proceedings of the Investigation No.70 of 2025, “State Vs. Sameer Sehgal” under Sections 323, 342, 364, 504 and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act against the Applicant, which is pending before the learned Juvenile Justice Board Dehradun, are hereby quashed. 14. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application, filed under 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is disposed of accordingly. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 0 4 .1 2 .2 0 2 5 Nitesh/