2026:UHC:1700 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C-528 No.2285 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge- sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 124 of 2025 under Sections 125(b), 281 and 324(2) of B.N.S. as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that initially an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the applicant alleging that on 01.08.2024, the respondent no.2 with his husband was going on vehicle suddenly a car hit the vehicle of respondent due to which, respondent no.2 sustain fracture on his leg. On the basis of the said F.I.R., the Investigating Officer, after completion of the investigation, submitted a chargesheet, upon which the learned trial court took cognizance. 2026:UHC:1700 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant and the complainant/respondent no. 2 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 2025), along with affidavits of the applicant and the complainant/respondent no.2, has been filed stating that the complainant do not wish to prosecute the applicant. 7. The applicant and respondent no. 2/complainant are present through Video Conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 stated that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and that she does not wish to pursue the matter any further. She has no objection if the aforesaid criminal proceedings are quashed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 8. Learned State Counsel opposes the application, on the ground that the allegations include the offences under Sections 281 and 324(2), which is non- compoundable in nature. However, does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties or the filing of the joint compounding application. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the dispute between the parties arises out of a 2026:UHC:1700 private dispute. The allegations made in the F.I.R./charge-sheet are essentially personal in nature and do not involve any element of serious or grave public interest. It is also not in dispute that the parties have amicably settled their differences. Respondent no.2/complainant, who is present through Video Conferencing before this Court and duly identified by her counsel, has categorically stated that the dispute has been resolved and she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further against the applicants. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is empowered to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases where the dispute is essentially of a private and personal nature and the parties have settled the matter amicably. The said principle has been reiterated in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings arising out of personal disputes may be quashed when the parties have resolved their differences and the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. Considering the nature of the allegations, the compromise arrived at between the parties, and the categorical 2026:UHC:1700 statement of respondent no.2 that she does not wish to pursue the matter any further, this Court is of the considered view that no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings to continue and that the ends of justice would be met by quashing the same. 12. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. Consequently, the present C-528 application also stands allowed. The charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 124 of 2025 under Sections 125(b), 281 and 324(2) of B.N.S., as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case, are hereby quashed. 13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 13.03.2026 Mamta