Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5302 (UTT)

AKHILESH SEMWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

C528/1085/2026 · 2026-05-21

Alok Mahra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3971 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.1085 of 2026 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Rahul Adhikari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. and Mr. Nikhil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Susheel Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. Present C-528 application is filed with the prayer to set-aside/ quash the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani in Criminal Case No.3255 of 2015, whereby applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 285 and 338 of I.P.C. on the basis of compromise between the parties. 3. A complaint was lodged by the complainant against the applicant alleging therein that the complainant’s daughter-in-law (respondent no.2), after consuming water from a sealed Kinley water bottle served along with the meal at the applicant’s restaurant, sustained burn injuries in her mouth, allegedly caused by the presence of an inflammable substance/ acid in the bottle. It was further alleged that the health condition of respondent no.2 deteriorated on account of consuming the contaminated and inflammable liquid. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the applicant and other co- accused persons. In the interregnum, the complainant expired on 29.01.2024. Thereafter, one of the co-accused is stated to have confessed to the commission of the offence. Subsequently, learned trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2025, convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 285 and 338 of the I.P.C. and awarded the maximum sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of ₹1,00,000/ -, payable to the victim (respondent no.2), and in default of payment of fine, directed the applicant to undergo an additional simple imprisonment of one month. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 12.09.2025, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2025, which is presently pending consideration before the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, 2026:UHC:3971 Haldwani, District Nainital. 4. A compounding application being I.A. No.1 of 2026 has also been filed in the present matter seeking permission to compound the offences between the parties. The victim, in her statement recorded before this Court, has stated that she had purchased the sealed water bottle from the restaurant owned/ operated by the applicant. 5. Applicant as well as respondent no.2 are present in Court today, who have been duly identified by their learned counsel. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 has already filed an affidavit in support of the compounding application, affirming the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. It is jointly submitted that all disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably settled and resolved. 7. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the compounding application. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ramgopal & another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 14 SCC 531, has held that the High Court, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyse the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. 9. Following the aforesaid ratio, present compounding application is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.09.2025, passed learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani in Criminal Case No.3255 of 2015, is hereby quashed. 10. C-528 application stands disposed of. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 21.05.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445 e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5 109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.21 17:05:01 +05'30'