SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 1112 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners has sought quashing of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0055 of 2026, under Sections 351(3), 352 and 69 of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun. 3. In this case, an FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2, under Sections 351(3), 352 and 69 of B.N.S., in which, it was alleged that the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 were in relationship with each other and petitioner no.1 on false pretext of marriage made physical relations with respondent no.2 and thereafter refused to perform marriage. 4. Now, a compounding application, jointly signed by counsel for respondent no.2 and counsel for the petitioners has been filed duly supported by affidavits of the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have entered into settlement, therefore, the matter needs to be compounded. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that dispute has now been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, his client wants to close the matter to ensure that peace is restored. 7. Today, parties are present before this Court, who are duly identified by their counsels. It is submitted by the parties that petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have performed their marriage on 02.06.2026. At the time of marriage, petitioner no. 1 was aged about 21 years and 2 months while respondent no. 2 was aged about 24 years. Both are major. It is further submitted that they have applied for registration of their marriage under Section 27 of UCC. 8. Both the parties also made a statement that, in view of the settlement, they want to close the matter. 9. Having regard to the nature of offence and also considering the broad guidelines issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs State of Punjab & another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, request of the petitioners deserve to be acceded to. 10. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and, that being so, continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and injustice. Rather, it would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Ends of justice would be met if criminal proceedings are put to an end, because this would allow the parties to translate their decision to live in peace in the reality. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. 11. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0055 of 2026, under Sections 351(3), 352 and 69 of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun, is hereby quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom. 12. Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 15.06.2026 Ujjwal