2026:UHC:4347 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1150/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ravi Biswht, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Abhijay Negi, proxy counsel for Mr. Prem Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4 Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge- sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4713 of 2019, arising out of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. and 4/5 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that an F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant against the applicants under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C., on which, the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has submitted chargesheet under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. and 4/5 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) 2026:UHC:4347 Act, 1978, on which, learned trial court took cognizance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant 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. 1 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 applicants. 7. Applicant No. 2 is present in person before this Court, whereas applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing. Both parties have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Upon interaction with respondent no. 2, she stated that the applicants have refunded the entire alleged amount to her. respondent no. 2 has unequivocally affirmed the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and stated that the dispute has been amicably settled voluntarily, without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure from any quarter. 8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants 2026:UHC:4347 handed over a demand draft amounting to ₹3,00,000/- to the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 in open Court, who acknowledged receipt thereof on behalf of respondent no. 2. It has further been stated and accepted that a sum of ₹1,00,000/- has already been paid in cash to respondent no. 2. 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 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 2026:UHC:4347 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 09.09.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4713 of 2019, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed. 15. The present C-528 application is, accordingly, allowed. 16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 01.06.2026 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: 2026.06.03 15:44:07 +05'30' 2026:UHC:4347