2025:UHC:5545 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 30.06.2025 C-528 No. 976 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Subhash Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Vikash Uniyal along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holders for the State. 3. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4. 4. Present petition is filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash the impugned charge-sheet, impugned cognizance order dated 26.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 2236 of 2017 (F.I.R. No.216 of 2017) ‘State Vs. Imran’ for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 & 506 I.P.C. as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that both parties have settled their dispute amicably. Respondent nos.2 & 3 no longer wishes to pursue the case. A joint compounding application (IA/1/2025), along with individual affidavits, has been filed to support this. 6. The applicant and respondent nos.2 & 3 appeared before the Court in person duly identified by their respective counsel. 7. Learned counsel for the parties would 2025:UHC:5545 submit that applicant and respondent nos.2 & 3 are neighbours and due to a misunderstanding, the F.I.R. has been lodged by them against each other, the dispute has now been resolved outside the Court. Therefore, the criminal proceedings be quashed on the basis of the amicable settlement between the parties. 8. Learned State Counsel opposed the compounding application on the ground that alleged Sections 323, 504, and 506 of I.P.C. are compoundable offenses. However, Section 354 IPC is non-compoundable offence. 9. The Court observed that since the matter has been settled, the possibility of conviction is remote. Continuing the proceedings would be unfair and not serve the ends of justice. 10. So far as compounding of non- compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held that FIRs can be quashed to secure justice, even for non-compoundable offences. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160], the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that High Courts have broader powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, even if offences are not compoundable. 11. In view of the above, compounding 2025:UHC:5545 application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The cognizance order dated 26.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 2236 of 2017 (F.I.R. No. 216 of 2017) ‘State Vs. Imran’ for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504 & 506 I.P.C. is hereby quashed. Consequently, the C-528 petition is allowed. 12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 30.06.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:5545