2026:UHC:4241 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/623/2022 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Priya Mewari, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present C-482 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 21.12.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.3228 of 2020, under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. pending in the court of learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant alleging that the applicant, on the false promise of marriage, established physical relations with her. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the present applicant, whereupon the learned trial court took cognizance and summoned the applicant. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that at the time of the alleged incident as well as lodging of the F.I.R., 2026:UHC:4241 the applicant was only 16 years and one month old, whereas the complainant was about 19 years and six months old. It is contended that the complainant was fully aware of the age of the applicant and, therefore, the allegations regarding establishment of physical relations on the false pretext of marriage are wholly improbable and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 7. She would further submit that with the intervention of respectable members of society, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. In this regard, a joint compounding application, being I.A. No. 4 of 2026, duly supported by affidavits of both the applicants and respondents 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 she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 8. The applicant is present in person before this Court, whereas respondent no.2 has appeared through Video Conferencing. Both parties have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Upon interaction with respondent no.2, she stated that the F.I.R. in question was lodged by her under the influence of wrong legal 2026:UHC:4241 advice and due to pressure exerted by her family members. She further submitted that she has since solemnized marriage with another person and is presently residing peacefully in her matrimonial life. Respondent no.2 has unequivocally affirmed the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and stated that the dispute has now been amicably and voluntarily settled, without any coercion or undue influence. 9. Learned State counsel would oppose the compounding application, 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 2026:UHC:4241 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 and the categorical stand taken by respondent no. 2 that she 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 is allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet, cognizance/ summoning order dated 21.12.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of the 2026:UHC:4241 Criminal Case No.3228 of 2020 pending before the court of learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital are hereby quashed. 15. The present C-482 application is, accordingly, allowed. 16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 29.05.2026 Mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584 af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd64267 1329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd548 52c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab 5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.30 15:56:40 +05'30'