2026:UHC:4505 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1230/2026 With Compounding Appl. No. 2 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Vidushi Bhardwaj, leaned counsel for the complainant. 4. The present application has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 for quashing of the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5886 of 2024, State vs. Rajdeep Gogoi, wherein the present applicant is facing the trial for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A IPC. 5. Instant application is moved along with the compounding application supported with the affidavits of the applicant and the respondent/ complainant. 6. It is contended that in fact the incident was nothing but an accident in which the husband of the informant died during treatment and thereafter claim petition was filed before the MACT wherein compensation was awarded by the MACT to the respondent. It is contended in the compounding application that now the parties have settled the dispute, since the incident is only an accident, and now compensation has been awarded, therefore, the proceeding be closed by allowing the compounding application. 7. The applicant and the respondent/ complainant are present in Court and are identified by their counsel. 8. Mr. Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the offences are non compoundable but taking into consideration that MACT has already awarded compensation by treating the 2026:UHC:4505 incident to be an accident, therefore with the leave of the Court compounding application can be allowed. 9. In reference to the non compoundable offence, the counsel for the parties relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein certain principles has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The relevant extract is reproduced herein as under:- 31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: (I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. (II)When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, 2026:UHC:4505 the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime. 13. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the parties have settled their dispute, after award passed by the Tribunal and the respondent/complainant who is present in Court does not want to pursue with the proceeding in view of the settlement arrived in between the parties this Court is of the view that the compounding application deserves to be allowed. 14. In such view of the matter, and after 2026:UHC:4505 taking into consideration all these aspects and the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties the present C528 application as well as compounding application are allowed and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5886 of 2024, State vs. Rajdeep Gogoi, pending in the court of C.J. M. Dehradun is also hereby quashed. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 05.06.2026 Parul