Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4317 (UTT)

MOHAMMAD ARIF v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/51/2026 · 2026-04-28

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3232 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS IA 1/2026 (For Compounding Application) In WPCRL No. 51 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Mohd. Imran and Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Anuj Singh Kunjwal, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The instant petition has been moved by the petitioner Mr. Mohd. Arif S/o Ameer Ahmad praying for quashing of First Information Report dated 009.08.2024 bearing FIR No. 0327 of 2024, wherein, the petitioner has been implicated by the respondent-complainant for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 465 of IPC. 5. The petition is filed along with the compounding application with the affidavits of the petitioner and the respondent-complainant. 6. It is contended in the compounding application signed by both the parties that with the intervention of elderly persons and the family members they have settled their dispute amicably and buried all the differences and their relations are very cordial. 7. The petitioner as well as the respondent- complainant are present and are identified by their respective counsel. 8. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. submits that the offences punishable under section 420 of IPC is compoundable, however, the offence punishable under section 465 of IPC is compoundable only with the leave of the court. He also submits that since the complainant does not want to pursue with the impugned FIR, therefore, there is no useful purpose to go with the investigation. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the parties have settled their dispute and the respondent-complainant, who is present in court 2026:UHC:3232 also submits that he does not want to pursue with the impugned FIR, therefore, this court is of the view that there is no useful purpose to go with the investigation. 10. In such view of the matter the compounding as well as the writ petition are allowed. The impugned FIR bearing FIR No. 0327 of 2024 is hereby quashed. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 28.04.2026 PR