2026:UHC:3907 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 / 1 0 6 6 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Himanhu Aswal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1089 of 2025 under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of B.N.S. pending before the trial court of Kotdwar District, Pauri Garhwal. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the impugned F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant alleging that unknown cyber-fraudsters deceived him of a sum of ₹8,00,000/- through a fraudulent social media advertisement, which promised lucrative returns in exchange for permitting the installation of a mobile tower on his land. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet against the present applicants. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that, with the intervention of respectable members of society, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. The applicants have refunded the entire alleged 2026:UHC:3907 amount to the complainant, who has now expressed his unwillingness to prosecute the applicants any further. In this regard, a joint compounding application, being I.A. No. 1 of 2026, duly supported by affidavits of both the applicants and respondent no. 2, has been filed before this Court. The application records that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, out of free will, and without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. Respondent no. 2 has unequivocally stated that he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 7. It is further submitted that applicant no. 1 is presently on bail, while applicant no. 2, though granted bail by the competent court, continues to remain in judicial custody owing to his poor financial condition and inability to furnish local sureties. 8. Applicant no. 1 appeared in person before this Court, applicant no. 2 joined proceedings through video conferencing from the office of the Superintendent of Jail, Pauri Garhwal, and respondent no. 2 was also present in Court. All parties were duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Upon interaction with respondent no. 2, he affirmed the factum of compromise, confirmed receipt of the refunded amount from the applicants, and reiterated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. 9. Learned State counsel would oppose the compounding application, However, he does not dispute the factum of compromise entered into between the 2026:UHC:3907 parties. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. From the material brought on record as well as the statements made before this Court, it transpires that the dispute between the parties arose out of personal discord and the same is essentially private in nature. The compromise entered into between the parties appears to be genuine, voluntary and free from any coercion or undue influence. 12. It is well settled that even in respect of non-compoundable offences, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 B.N.S.S., can quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving offences of personal nature may be quashed where the parties have amicably 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 the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the parameters governing exercise of inherent powers for quashing proceedings on the basis of compromise. 13. Considering the nature of allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties 2026:UHC:3907 and the categorical stand taken by respondent no. 2 that he does not wish to prosecute the matter further and he has now received the alleged amount from the applicants, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuance of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and the same would amount to abuse of the process of law. 14. Accordingly, the compounding application being I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is allowed. Consequently, the charegsheet as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1089 of 2025 pending before the trial court at Kotdwar District, Pauri Garhwal are hereby quashed qua the applicants. 16. The present C-528 application is, accordingly, allowed. 17. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 20.05.2026 Mamta MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e 430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e6 8911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.22 13:47:05 +05'30'