SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS IA 1/2026 (For compounding application) In WPCRL No. 526 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Abhilasha Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The instant writ petition has been moved by the petitioners Lalita Rani W/o Late Daulat Singh and her mother Rajbala W/o Late Balwant Sing, wherein, they are praying for quashing of First Information Report dated 20.09.2025 bearing FIR No. 0249 of 2025, whereby, they have been implicated for the offence punishable under section 108 of BNS, 2023. 5. The writ petition is supported with the compounding application along with the affidavit of the petitioner and the respondent-complainant, who are present in court and are identified by their respective counsel. 6. In the compounding application it is contended that due to misunderstanding the impugned FIR has been lodged implicating the petitioners, though as a matter of fact his real brother due to some unknown reasons and financial crisis since he has taken various loans commits suicide on 27.08.2025 by hanging. It is contended in a very haste manner the FIR has been lodged though even as per the post-mortem report the cause of death is due to asphyxia ante mortem hanging. 7. It is contended in the affidavit by the complainant that from the marriage of petitioner no. 1 with his real brother a female child was also born in the year 2022 and at present she is about 3 years old living with the petitioner no. 1 and taking into consideration that it was a case of suicide he has now decided not to pursue with the impugned FIR. 8. Mr. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General submits that though the offence is not compoundable but taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR and furthermore as per the opinion of the doctor as given in the post-mortem it is a case of suicidal death and furthermore since the respondent- complainant, who is the real brother of the deceased, himself does not want to pursue with the impugned FIR since the FIR lodged in a very haste manner there is no useful purpose to go with the investigation and, as such, at this juncture when there is no such evidence against the petitioners and the investigation is at a preliminary stage, therefore, the compounding application can be allowed. He further submits that since now the complainant who is the real brother of the deceased does not want to pursue with the FIR the ongoing investigation is nothing but completely a futile exercise. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the complainant does not want to pursue with the FIR and the record of anticipatory bail application is also before this court, wherein, the post-mortem report is enclosed, and there is no any such opinion of the Doctor concerned that there was any injury mark on the body of the deceased and as contended by Mr. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General, that even from the post-mortem report the case appears to be of a case of suicide, this court is of the view that there is no useful purpose to go with the investigation. Therefore, this court is of the view that the writ petition as well as the compounding application both deserves to be allowed. 10. In such an eventuality, the writ petition as well as the compounding application are allowed and the impugned FIR dated 20.09.2025 is also hereby quashed. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 02.04.2026 PR