2026:UHC:2370 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/577/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Vishwaketu Vaidya, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge- sheet as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District Champawat in Criminal Case No. 41 of 2025, under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C., along with the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no.2 lodged the F.I.R. alleging therein that while she was present in her shop, the applicant winked at her and, when she objected, the applicant abused her in filthy language and outraged her modesty. Pursuant thereto, the matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant and his mother, upon which the learned trial court took cognizance. 2026:UHC:2370 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant and respondent no.2/complainant have now amicably resolved their dispute and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. In support thereof, a joint compounding application (IA No.1 of 2026), supported by affidavits of the applicant and respondent no.2, has been filed, stating that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and the complainant does not wish to prosecute the applicant. 7. The applicant and respondent no.2/complainant are present in person before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Upon interaction with the Court, respondent no.2 has stated that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 8. Learned State Counsel opposes the application on the ground that the allegations include an offence under Section 354 I.P.C., which is non- compoundable in nature. However, he does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties or the filing of the joint compounding application. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. From the material brought on record, it transpires that the dispute 2026:UHC:2370 between the applicant and respondent no.2 has been amicably settled. The joint compounding application (IA No.1 of 2026), supported by affidavits of both parties, indicates that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion. Respondent no.2 has also reiterated before this Court that she has settled the dispute with the applicant and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. It is true that the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. is non-compoundable. However, it is well settled that in appropriate cases, where the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 11. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, may quash criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the parties, even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the dispute is essentially private in nature and the compromise appears to be genuine and voluntary. 12. In the present case, considering the 2026:UHC:2370 nature of allegations, the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the complainant herself does not wish to prosecute the applicant any further, this Court is satisfied that the compromise is genuine and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds that it is a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 14. Accordingly, the compounding application (IA No.1 of 2026) is allowed. The charge-sheet as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District Champawat in Criminal Case No. 41 of 2025, under Sections 323, 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C., along with the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. 15. The present C-528 application stands allowed accordingly. 16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra J.) 02.04.2026 Mamta MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f24 4f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a 6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9c abfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd2 6690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.06 17:13:40 +05'30'