2026:UHC:1104 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/293/2026 Along with Compounding Appl.No. 1 of 2026 Mohd. Tohid and Ors. …..Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …..Respondents Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Parth Tamta, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred by the seven petitioners along with the compounding application ,i.e., IA No. 1 of 2026 for quashing of the FIR dated 25.01.2026, bearing FIR No. 0016 of 2026, registered at P.S. Bahadrabad District Haridwar wherein they have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 351(3), 352 and 74 of BNS 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the parties argued and submits that all these petitioners and complainant are, in fact, close relatives and residing in the same village, i.e. Village Ghodewala Majra, Badheri Rajputan, District Haridwar and on the date of incident there was some hot talks in between all of them for minor issue and now they have settled their disputes. 6. All the petitioners, and the complainant including victim are present in court and identified by their counsel. Xerox copies of the Aadhar card, duly signed by the parties and verified by their counsel are kept on record. This Court interacted with them and they submit that they have 2026:UHC:1104 settled their dispute amicably and their relations are very cordial and the complainant who is present in Court also submits that he does not want to pursue the impugned FIR. 7. Mr. Nainwal, learned A.GA. for the State submits that all the offences are compoundable except the offence punishable under Section 74 of BNS 2023, however, he submits that the petitioners and the complainant are relatives and residing in the same village, therefore, at this juncture with the permission of the Court this penal provision can also be compounded. Even otherwise learned A.GA. submits that since complainant does not want to pursue the impugned FIR, therefore, further investigation on the impugned FIR is nothing but a futile exercise. 8. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration that now the parties have settled their dispute and all of them are close relatives and belongs to same village, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no useful purpose to proceed further with the investigation and, as such, the compounding application deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly compounding application as well as instant writ petition are allowed. Consequently, impugned FIR is hereby quashed. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 18.02.2026 Parul 2026:UHC:1104