SL. No. Dat e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2025:UHC:6840 ` C-582 No. 1289 of 2025 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Tejas Agarwal, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Mahavir Kohli, and Mr. Ujjwal, learned counsels for Respondent No. 2. 4. The present Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is with a prayer that the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2025, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Lalit Mohan & Ors.” Pending in the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act) Pauri Garhwal as well as Charge Sheet dated 10.03.2025 be quashed on the basis of the compromise. The compounding application which is annexed as paper no. 37 wherein the parties have annexed endorse their signature and the said application is being endorsed by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Today, the Applicant no.3-Kamlesh Duklan, S/o Shri Pancham Ram, is present and has been duly identified by Mr. Tejas Agarwal, Advocate. Respondent No. 2-Geeta Diwakar, complainant, is also present and has been identified by Mr. Ujjwal and Mr. Mahavir Kohli, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 6. The main dispute are against the Applicant no. 3 Kamlesh Duklan and Respondent no. 2 Geeta Diwakar, has made the allegation that she was subjected to abusive language and resulting in a case against the Applicants under SC/ST Act. 7. On interacting with the parties, especially, respondent no. 2 Geeta Diwakar and Applicant no. 3 Kamlesh Duklan, made a statement before this Court that they have settled their dispute into the terms of the compromise. Applicant no. 3 Kamlesh Duklan makes a statement before this Court that whatever happened in the present matter he feel sorry for that and in that terms respondent no.2 Geeta Diwakar stated that she is willing to forgo and forget everything and wishes to settle the matter by way of compromise. 8. The compounding application has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the State with the contention that the present matter relates to the SC/ST Act and should not be compounded. 9. 10. In light of the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012, decided on 06.12.2012, it is well settled that criminal proceedings may be quashed if the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they are inclined to restore peace and harmony. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be served by quashing entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2025, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Lalit Mohan & Ors.” Pending in the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act) Pauri Garhwal as well as Charge Sheet dated 10.03.2025, qua the present Applicants only. 11. Accordingly, the Compounding Application is allowed. The entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2025, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Lalit Mohan & Ors.” Pending in the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act) Pauri Garhwal as well as Charge Sheet dated 10.03.2025 be quashed, are hereby quashed only in respect of the present Applicants. 12. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is accordingly disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 04.08.2025 Nahid