SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010209442025 WPCRL/1785/2025 Anas Qureshi Alias Mohd. Anas --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand And Others --Respondents Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Shariq Khurshid, Advocate for the complainant/respondent no.3. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 171 of 2025, under Section 69 of BNS, registered at Police Station Kela Khera, District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by respondent no. 3 in which it was alleged that the petitioner on the false pretext of marriage made physical relations with her and now he is refusing to marry her. 6. Now, a compounding application, jointly signed by learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned counsel for the petitioner, has been filed duly supported by affidavits of the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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. It is further submitted that FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding between the parties. 9. Today, petitioner 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. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, would submit that chargesheet has been filed in the matter. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the instructions, would submit that till date, cognizance has not been taken in the chargesheet and as such, the matter could be compounded. 12. 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. 13. 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 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 society or would promote savagery. 14. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, F.I.R./Case Crime No. 171 of 2025, under Section 69 of BNS, registered at Police Station Kela Khera, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom. 15. Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Alok Mahra J.) 21.07.2026 Ujjwal