]SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:341 WPCRL No.29 of 2026 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Ankush Kuamar Tyagi, learned counsel for the Petitioners. 2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State. 3. Mr. Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for Respondent nos.3, 4 & 5. 4. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alongwith compounding application, which is paper no.30 and the same is supported with the affidavits of petitioners and respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 wherein signatures have been annexed. 5. Petitioners as well as respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 are present in the Court. They are duly identified by their respective counsel. 6. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the impugned FIR No.438 of 2025 dated 23.11.2025 under Sections 115(2), 191(1), 191(2), 351(3) & 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 registered at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. Further prayer has been made directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioners in connection with aforesaid impugned FIR. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have filed their respective affidavits along with the compounding application stating therein that they do not wish to pursue the present criminal case any further and a compromise has been entered between them. 8. Learned State counsel has opposed the compounding application firstly on the ground that it is a public nuisance and offence against the society at large, which is relating to the incident whereby the miscreants-petitioner nos.1 to 4 barged into the school premises during the school function interrupting and causing the injuries to the Chowkidar and two drivers, who intervene their inclusion; amongst whom respondent no.3-Salim, son of Asgar, is the official driver of the school, respondent no.4-Aman, son of Mohd. Sali, is also a driver and respondent no.5-Mukesh, son of Ratan Singh, is Chowkidar. 9. Though this is an offence against the society but the informant and the injured have come into the terms of compromise and there is no other person to object for the same except learned State Counsel. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. In view of the principle of law laid down by Ho’ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, 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 interest to restore peace and harmony between them. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the above, the compounding application is allowed subject to the condition that all the petitioners shall deposit Rs.10,000/- each in School Fund. The entire proceedings arising out of the FIR No.438 of 2025 dated 23.11.2025 under Sections 115(2), 191(1), 191(2), 351(3) & 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 registered at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby quashed. 13. Accordingly instant writ petition stands disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 08.01.2026 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 16:20:55 +05'30'