2026:UHC:4467 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1224/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Ish Mohan Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the Challani Report No. 01 of 2025, summoning/cognizance order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Criminal Inquiry/Case No.09 of 2025 pending before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Tehri Garhwal for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2) and 124(1) B.N.S. and the entire proceedings of aforesaid case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submits that an F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant alleging that his son, who was studying in Class VIII, was attending a chemistry class on 08.09.2025 between 12:00 P.M. and 12:15 P.M.; that, during the class, the applicant allegedly first threw water and then acid on the complainant's son, causing injuries to his cheeks and eyes. It is further alleged that the complainant's son informed his father over the phone that he had a quarrel with the applicant about one month earlier and that the applicant was holding a grudge 2026:UHC:4467 against him and the complainant's wife thereafter took the child for medical treatment. Learned counsel further submits that after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the Challani Report. Thereafter, the learned Juvenile Justice Board took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the guardian of the child in conflict with law vide order dated 12.11.2025. The proceedings are presently pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Tehri Garhwal. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that, considering the young age and future prospects of both the applicant and the victim, their respective natural guardians have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court. He submits that a joint compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026), along with affidavits of both parties, has been filed stating that the matter has been resolved amicably and that the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the case against the applicant. 7. The natural guardian of the applicant is present through Video Conferencing and respondent no. 2 are present before the Court in person and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 stated that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any pressure, threat, or undue influence, and that he has no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed. 8. Learned State Counsel opposes the compounding application. However, he 2026:UHC:4467 does not dispute that a compromise has been entered into between the parties. 9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not disputed that the applicant is a child in conflict with law and the victim is also a minor. The record reflects that subsequent to initiation of the proceedings, the parties, through their respective natural guardians, have amicably resolved their dispute and have expressed their desire to maintain cordial relations in future. The compromise application supported by affidavits of the parties. 10. The natural guardian of the applicant as well as respondent no.2 have appeared before this Court and have unequivocally stated that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, out of their own free will and without any coercion, pressure or undue influence from any quarter. Respondent no.2 has specifically stated that he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further and has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. 11. Though the offences alleged are not compoundable in terms of the provisions of the Code, it is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (corresponding powers under law), may quash criminal proceedings where the dispute is predominantly personal in nature and where continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful 2026:UHC:4467 purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, held that criminal proceedings arising out of private disputes may be quashed on the basis of a genuine settlement between the parties if such exercise advances the ends of justice. 12. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise and observed that where the parties have settled their disputes and the possibility of conviction has become remote and bleak, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, reiterated that while exercising inherent jurisdiction, the Court must consider the nature of the offence, the impact upon society and whether quashing would secure the ends of justice. The paramount consideration is to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to promote substantial justice between the parties. 14. In the present case, both the applicant and the victim are minors studying in school. The incident appears to have arisen out of a dispute between children of tender age. The victim has recovered from the injuries and the respective guardians of both children have consciously resolved the matter in the 2026:UHC:4467 larger interest of the future, education and rehabilitation of the minors. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the parties, the genuine nature of the compromise and the remote possibility of any fruitful outcome from continuation of the proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be better served by giving quietus to the litigation rather than permitting the proceedings to continue. 15. Accordingly, the compromise application is allowed. Consequently, the present C-528 application is also allowed. The Challani Report No.01 of 2025, the summoning/cognizance order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Criminal Inquiry/Case No.09 of 2025 pending before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Tehri Garhwal for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2) and 124(1) of B.N.S. as well as the entire proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 03.06.2026 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=6a812005bebfcf46f244f 3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6 7ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266 90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.05 14:18:30 +05'30'