2026:UHC:3097 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/797/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun, in connection with Session Trial No. 26 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun, presently pending in the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTSC, Dehradun, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 5. An amendment application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking certain corrections in the memo of the present application. 6. For the reasons stated therein, the amendment application is allowed. 7. Let the amended memo be taken on record. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent no. 2 lodged the F.I.R. on 06.01.2024 under Sections 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 I.P.C. at Police 2026:UHC:3097 Station Kotwali, Dehradun. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge- sheet, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial. 9. He would further submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated; that, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. Rather, it reflects that the parties were in a consensual relationship from the year 2021 to 2024. 10. Learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their dispute. A joint compounding application being I.A. No. 1 of 2026, duly supported by affidavits of the applicant and respondent no. 2, has been filed stating that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure, and that respondent no. 2 does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 11. The applicant as well as respondent no. 2 appeared before this Court on the previous date of hearing and were duly identified by their respective counsel. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 affirmed the factum of compromise and her intention not to proceed with the matter. 12. Learned State Counsel opposes the application on the ground that the offences alleged, particularly under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 I.P.C., are non- compoundable in nature. However, the 2026:UHC:3097 factum of compromise between the parties is not disputed. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 14. The question which arises for consideration is whether, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise between the parties. 15. 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 powers, may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the dispute is essentially private and personal in nature and where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court or where quashing would secure the ends of justice. 16. In Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down broad guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, inter alia, emphasizing that the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and whether continuation of proceedings would serve any useful purpose. Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, it has been reiterated that the inherent power of the High Court is of wide amplitude and is to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, though such power must be exercised with due 2026:UHC:3097 caution. 17. In the present case, from the material on record, it appears that the dispute between the parties has arisen out of a personal relationship. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that she has entered into a compromise voluntarily and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. There is nothing on record to indicate that the compromise is vitiated by coercion or undue influence. 18. Having regard to the nature of allegations, the relationship between the parties, and the voluntary settlement arrived at between them, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve any fruitful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 19. Accordingly, the compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) is allowed. 20. Consequently, the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun, in Session Trial No. 26 of 2025, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTSC, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. 21. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. 22. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 29.04.2026 Mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584a f1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671 329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd548 52c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab 5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.30 17:17:44 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3097