2025:UHC:5361 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 709 of 2024 23rd June, 2025 Rizwan ………Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others …….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Manoj Bhatt proxy counsel for Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with Ms. Shweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral). Present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned F.I.R. No. 0093 of 2024 dated 07.05.2024 under Section 354, 342, 363 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the Protection from Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO’) registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Pithoragarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. has been registered by respondent no.2/complainant under Section 365 I.P.C. by respondent no.2/complainant alleging therein that her daughter aged 14 years is missing and after a lot of efforts she could not be found; that, later on after the daughter of the complainant being recovered and on the basis of statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the petitioner was taken into custody. The petitioner moved his bail application before the trial court, which stood dismissed vide order dated 2025:UHC:5361 2 10.06.2024. 3. Along with the present petition a Compounding Application IA No.1/2024 duly supported by separate affidavits has been filed by the parties stating therein that the petitioner and the respondent no.3/complainant have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and now the respondent no.3 does not want to prosecute the petitioner any further. The petitioner is in jail. Mohamad Akhlaq, brother of the petitioner is doing parvi on his behalf. 4. Today, learned proxy counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is unavailable and the parties themselves are not present to press the compounding application. 5. A perusal of the record would reveal that on 02.06.2025, this Court had directed the parties to appear in person to press the compounding application. However, today, neither the arguing counsel nor the parties have appeared. 6. It thus appears that the parties are not interested in pursuing the compounding application and the same has been filed merely to misuse the process of law and waste the valuable time of the Court. Such conduct is deprecated as it unnecessarily burdens the judicial system and the Registry of the Court. 7. Accordingly, the compounding application is dismissed with cost of `5000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in the account of Uttarakhand High Court Advocates Welfare Fund, High Court Bar Association, Nainital within two weeks from today. 2025:UHC:5361 3 8. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned F.I.R. on the basis of an alleged compromise between the petitioner and respondent no.3, supported by affidavits and a compounding application. However, since the compounding application has been dismissed, the present petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. does not survive. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition stands dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 23.06.2025 Mamta