2026:UHC:3276 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/837/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. K.K. Harbola, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Dheeraj Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 4. Present application under Section 528 B.N.S. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District Champawat in Criminal Case No. 101 of 2025, arising out of offences under Sections 3(5), 305 and 317(2) of the B.N.S., presently pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Tanakpur, District Champawat, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 3 alleging that two unknown persons visited his jewellery shop on the pretext of purchasing ornaments and asked to be shown various items. It is alleged that while the complainant and his daughter were attending to them, the said persons 2026:UHC:3276 removed certain jewellery articles. The theft came to light on the following day when the complainant checked his stock and found certain items missing. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge- sheet against the present applicants, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. A joint compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026), duly supported by affidavits of the applicants and respondent no. 3, has been filed, stating that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence or pressure, and that the complainant does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 7. The applicants as well as respondent no. 3 are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Upon interaction, respondent no. 3 has affirmed the factum of compromise and has stated that the entire jewellery/articles allegedly taken have been returned to him and that he has no subsisting grievance against the applicants. 8. Learned State counsel would oppose the application on the ground that the offences alleged are non- 2026:UHC:3276 compoundable in nature. However, he does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. From the record and the statements made before this Court, it is evident that the dispute between the parties is essentially private and personal in nature. The complainant has acknowledged receipt of the alleged stolen articles and has categorically expressed his unwillingness to pursue the matter further. The compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary and free from any coercion. 11. It is well settled that even in respect of non-compoundable offences, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, can quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is predominantly of a private nature and continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving non- compoundable offences may be quashed where the parties have settled their dispute and the ends of justice so require. Similar principles have been reiterated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, wherein guidelines have been laid down for quashing proceedings on 2026:UHC:3276 the basis of compromise. 12. Considering the nature of the allegations, the restitution of the alleged stolen property, and the voluntary settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 13. Accordingly, the compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) is allowed. 14. Consequently, the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Tanakpur, District Champawat in Criminal Case No. 101 of 2025, arising out of offences under Sections 3(5), 305 and 317(2) of the B.N.S., as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. 15. The present C-528 application is, accordingly, allowed. 16. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 29.04.2026 Mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900 bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b , postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.30 17:20:03 +05'30'