SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 109 of 2026 With IA 2/2026 (For Compounding Application) WPCRL No. 110 of 2026 With IA 2/2026 (For Compounding Application) Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPCRL No. 109 of 2026. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Ramji Srivastava and Ms. Stuti Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPCRL No. 110 of 2026. 4. These two writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of First Information Reports dated 17.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 377 of 2024 registered at Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC as well as First Information Report dated 12.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0095 of 2025 lodged in the same police station i.e. P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023. The FIR dated 17.12.2024 was lodged by one Rajeev Anand implicating as many as five persons namely Lakhan Singh, Jagveer Singh, Mohd. Ikram, Estiyaq and Abdul Kadir and so far as FIR dated 12.03.2025 is concerned the same is lodged by one Lakhan Singh implicating as many as seven persons namely Jagveer Singh, Rajeev Anand, Seema Ahluwalia, Rahul Ahluwalia, Jaidev Kakkar, Tanveer Hussain and Mohd. Irfan. 5. The dispute in between the parties is arising out of an agreement to sale dated 25.07.2022 pursuant to which several sale deeds were executed and the allegation was that the seller of the land belongs to the schedule caste community but he sold the land by showing himself as of a general category and apart from this another dispute was that some part of the land was under dispute despite this the sale deed was executed. 6. Now, in both the petitions the compounding applications have been moved with this contention that they have settled their disputes and the entire sale consideration has been refunded back to the purchaser. The owner of the land, who sold the land pursuant to the agreement to sale is Mr. Lakhan Singh, who is the petitioner in WPCRL No. 109 of 2026 and the purchaser to whom the land was sold out are the petitioners in WPCRL No. 110 of 2026. 7. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. submits that some of the penal provisions are not compoundable but with the permission of the court the offences can be compounded, since the dispute appears to be a land dispute and prima-facie appears to be civil in nature. 8. So far as lodging of this FIR is concerned admittedly the parties have settled their disputes and Lakhan Singh the owner of the land remitted the entire sale consideration to the purchasers who are the petitioners in WPCRL No. 110 of 2026 and, therefore, initiation of the investigation in respect of both the FIR is nothing but a futile exercise. 9. Mr. Lakhan Singh, the petitioner in WPCRL No. 109 of 2026 is present in court and is identified by his counsel and this court also interact with him and he submits that he has remitted the entire amount of sale consideration to the persons to whom he sold the land. 10. Mr. Rajeev Anand is also present in court along with one Jaidev Kakkar and two others namely Seema Ahluwalia and Rahul Ahluwalia, who are the petitioners in WPCRL No. 110 of 2026 also joined the proceeding through V.C. and on interaction they also submits that they received the entire sale consideration through cheque and all of them are also identified by their respective counsels. 11. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions, this court is of the view that prima-facie the dispute appears to be a land dispute and appears to be civil in nature and furthermore the parties have settled their disputes and uptill date though the FIR has been lodged but the chargesheet has not been filed, therefore, further investigation is nothing but appears to be a futile exercise and as such this court is of the view that the compounding applications have to be allowed as above. 12. 12. Consequently, both the writ petitions are disposed of by allowing the compounding applications and both the impugned FIR i.e FIR dated 17.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 337 of 2024 and FIR dated 12.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0095 of 2025 are hereby quashed qua the petitioners. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 10.02.2026 PR