2026:UHC:4386 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1211/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3/complainant and victim. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 15.11.2024 and cognizance order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat/Sessions Judge, Champawat in S.S.T. No. 62 of 2024, arising out of offences punishable under Sections 137(2)/64 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, pending before the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat, District Champawat, along with the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned proceedings have been initiated on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 2, the father of the victim. As per the allegations contained in the F.I.R., on 05.10.2024 the victim, stated to be about 17 years of age, left her house without informing her family members and subsequently returned home on the same day. It was alleged that the applicant, who was known to the victim and was driving a tipper vehicle, had enticed her away and established 2026:UHC:4386 physical relations with her. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant, whereupon the learned trial court took cognizance and summoned him to face trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that, the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., did not support the prosecution version and categorically denied the allegations levelled against the applicant; that, the victim stated that she had left her house of her own free will after being scolded by her mother on the previous night. It is further submitted that during trial, both the victim and the complainant were examined as PW-1 and PW- 2 respectively and neither of them supported the prosecution case. PW-2/complainant also stated in his deposition that, at the time of the victim's admission in school, her age had been reduced by approximately two years. 7. Learned counsel further submits that PW-1/victim, in her examination before the trial court, stated that on 05.10.2024 at about 4:00 A.M., she herself stopped the tipper vehicle being driven by the applicant and thereafter boarded the vehicle. She also stated that the applicant enquired as to why she was travelling alone at such an early hour, whereupon she informed him that she had left her house after becoming upset. The victim further stated that the applicant advised her to return home and informed her that leaving the house in such a manner was not proper. Most significantly, the victim categorically deposed that the applicant had not committed any wrongful act with her. She also stated 2026:UHC:4386 that her earlier statement recorded by the police had not been made voluntarily and that the contents thereof had been written under pressure. 8. It is further submitted that the applicant, respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 have jointly filed affidavits before this Court reiterating that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. arose out of a misunderstanding and that no such incident, as alleged by the prosecution, had in fact taken place. Respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 have unequivocally stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings any further. 9. The applicant as well as respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2/complainant has stated that the F.I.R. was lodged due to misunderstanding and that he has no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed. The victim has also reiterated that the allegations made against the applicant are incorrect and that she has not been subjected to any sexual assault by him. 10. Learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the C-528 application on the ground that the serious allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. and certain offences are non- compoundable, however, he does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties. 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 2026:UHC:4386 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. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the material available on record. A perusal of the deposition of PW-1/victim demonstrates that she has completely exonerated the applicant and has not supported the allegations either of inducement or sexual assault. The complainant, who has been examined as PW- 2, has also not supported the prosecution version. Both the material witnesses have thus resiled from the allegations forming the foundation of the prosecution case. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, has held that where the uncontroverted allegations and the material available on record do not disclose the 2026:UHC:4386 commission of any offence or where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice. 15. In the present case, the victim herself has categorically denied the allegations of sexual assault and has deposed that the applicant neither enticed her away nor committed any wrongful act with her. The complainant has also not supported the prosecution story. In view of the testimony of the star witnesses and the material brought on record, the possibility of securing a conviction appears extremely remote. Continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 16. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The charge-sheet, impugned order dated 15.11.2024 and cognizance order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat/Sessions Judge, Champawat in S.S.T. No. 62 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat, District Champawat, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed. 17. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.06.2026 Mamta MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f24 4f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a 6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9 cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66d d26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef 0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.03 16:18:13 +05'30'