2026:UHC:3636 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 C5 2 8 / 9 2 8 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Himanshu Joshi proxy counsel for Mr. Vinay Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Doiwala, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 225 of 2025, as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no. 2/complainant lodged the F.I.R. alleging therein that the present applicant, with an intention to cause injury to the complainant, assaulted him by using a khukri, a sharp- edged weapon, and inflicted injury on his head. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet against the applicant, whereupon the learned trial Court took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that, during the 2026:UHC:3636 pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute out of their free will and without any coercion, and they no longer wish to pursue the matter. In support thereof, a joint compounding application being IA No. 1 of 2026, duly supported by the affidavits of the applicant as well as respondent no. 2/complainant, has been filed on record, wherein respondent no. 2 has categorically stated that he does not wish to prosecute the applicant any further. 7. The applicant and respondent no. 2/complainant are present before this Court through Video Conferencing. Upon interaction with the Court, respondent no. 2 has affirmed the factum of compromise and stated that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and that he has no grievance against the applicant and does not wish to continue with the criminal proceedings. 8. Learned State Counsel opposes the application on the ground that one of the offences alleged against the applicant is under Section 324 I.P.C., which is non- compoundable in nature. However, learned State Counsel does not dispute the factum of compromise entered into between the parties or the filing of the joint compounding application supported by their affidavits. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. From the material brought on record, it transpires that the dispute between the parties arose out of a personal altercation and is private in nature. The parties are 2026:UHC:3636 residents of the same locality and, with the intervention of respectable members of society, have amicably settled their disputes. Both the applicant and respondent no. 2 have unequivocally stated before this Court that the compromise entered into between them is voluntary, genuine and without any undue influence or coercion. A joint compounding application, duly supported by their affidavits, has also been filed in this regard. Although the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. is non- compoundable, it is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings involving non- compoundable offences where the dispute is essentially private and personal in nature and where continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab has held that criminal proceedings arising out of personal disputes may be quashed on the basis of compromise, even in respect of non-compoundable offences, if the Court is satisfied that the compromise is genuine and that quashing of proceedings would secure the ends of justice. 12. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the compromise entered into between the parties is bona fide, voluntary and genuine. Respondent no. 2/complainant has categorically stated that he does not wish to prosecute the applicant any further. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this 2026:UHC:3636 Court, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds it to be a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 13. Accordingly, the joint compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2026) is allowed. Consequently, the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Doiwala, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 225 of 2025, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned, are hereby quashed. 14. The present C-528 application stands allowed accordingly. 15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 13.05.2026 Mamta