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. 655 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. D.P. Mittal, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners who are seven in numbers namely Ranjeet Singh S/o Kripal Singh, Paramjit Kaur W/o Ranjeet Singh, Sarvjeet Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh, Preet Kaur@Harpreet Kaur W/o Sarvjeet Singh, Muskan D/o Ranjeet Singh, Karan Singh@ Karan Sandhu S/o Ranjeet Singh and Ms. Aman Kaur W/o Gurpinder Singh praying for quashing of First Information Report dated 30.01.2026 bearing FIR No. 0050 of 2026 P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the petitioners have been implicated for the offences punishable under sections 351(3) and 69 of BNS, 2023. 5. The petition is filed along with the compounding application supported with the affidavits of all the petitioners except petitioner no. 6, who is in judicial custody in relation to the impugned FIR. The affidavit of complainant-respondent no. 3 is also on record. 6. The vakalatnama on behalf of petitioner no. 6, who is in judicial custody dated 09.04.2026 and counter signed of the Jailor of Sub-Jail, Haldwani is also on record. All the petitioners except the petitioner no. 6, who is in judicial custody, are present in court. The respondent-complainant is also present. All of them are identified by their respective counsel through their Aadhar card. 7. The complainant in its affidavit filed in support of the compounding application dated 12.04.2026 contended that she is divorcee and came in contact with the petitioner no. 6 Karan Singh, the son of petitioner no. 1, in May, 2023 through her brother and they were in regular touch through mobile and then turned into love and thereafter the petitioner no. 6 proposed her to marry and thereafter the family members of both the parties were also agreed for this marriage and in between they develop physical relation also but after sometime the respondent no. 6 was ignoring the complainant on one pretext to another and ultimately refused to marry her and then extended threats; consequently, she lodged the FIR. 8. It is further contended in the affidavit of the complainant-victim that after sometime she came to know about the marriage of respondent no. 6 with another lady and thereafter she has decided to close that proceeding since continuation of the same will disturb the matrimonial life of the respondent no. 6 and now she has resolved all the disputes with the petitioner and does not wish to pursue the present case. 9. It is further contended that the allegation as alleged in the FIR are due to personal discord and misunderstanding and the relationship in between the complainant and petitioner no. 6 was consensual arising out of their love there is no element of any coercion or deceit and subsequent thereto due to intervention of some responsible persons of the society the parties have amicably settled their disputes and differences and such compromise has been arrived voluntarily without any pressure, coercion or undue influence from any side and in paragraph-6 she categorically stated that she does not wish to pursue the impugned FIR further as well all the consequential proceedings. 10. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State, submits that though the alleged offences are not compoundable but since the respondent-complainant herself does not want to pursue the impugned FIR, therefore, there is no useful purpose to go with the investigation. He has also not disputed about the vakalatnama of the petitioner no. 6, which is on record and countersigned by the Jailor. He also submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on 30.01.2026 and the investigation is at a preliminary stage and still going on and if the respondent-complainant does not want to pursue with the FIR then at this juncture the FIR can be quashed by allowing the compounding application. 11. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the affidavit of the respondent no. 3 that she does not want to pursue with the impugned FIR, this court is also of the view that there is no useful purpose to go with further investigation since the complainant herself is not pressing the impugned FIR. 12. In such view of the matter, the writ petition as well as the compounding application are allowed and the impugned FIR dated 30.01.2026 bearing FIR No. 0050 of 2026 P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar is also hereby quashed. 13. No order as to costs. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.04.2026 PR