2026:UHC:3699 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 0 0 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicantss. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Rakshit Joshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the summoning/cognizance order dated 17.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 815 of 2022, relating to offences punishable under Sections 336 and 506 I.P.C. pending before the Court of learned 3rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, along with the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the impugned F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant alleging therein that on 06.10.2020 at about 12:00 p.m., nearly 10–12 persons, allegedly armed with guns and rifles, unlawfully entered the house of the complainant, threatened and intimidated the complainant and his family members, and created an atmosphere of terror. It is further alleged that upon intervention of the neighbouring persons, the accused persons fled away from the spot. Pursuant 2026:UHC:3699 thereto, the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer and, upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted before the competent court, whereupon the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the applicants to face trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit with the intervention of respectable persons of the society, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and are now living peacefully and now complainant does not want to prosecute the applicants further. 7. In this regard, a joint compounding application being I.A. No. 1 of 2026, duly supported by affidavits of the applicants as well as respondent no. 2, has been filed before this Court stating therein that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, out of free will and without any coercion, pressure or undue influence, and that respondent no. 2 does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 8. The applicants as well as respondents are present before this Court through Video Conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Upon interaction made with the complainant, respondent no.2 has affirmed the factum of compromise and has stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. 9. Learned State counsel would oppose the application on the ground that the offence under Section 336 I.P.C. alleged against the applicants are non- 2026:UHC:3699 compoundable in nature. However, he does not dispute the factum of compromise entered into between the 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. 2026:UHC:3699 13. Considering the nature of allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the categorical stand taken by respondent no. 2 that he does not wish to prosecute the matter further, 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. 15. Consequently, the charge-sheet as well as the summoning/cognizance order dated 17.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 815 of 2022, pending before the Court of learned 3rd Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar along with the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case, 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.) 14.05.2026 Mamta