2026:UHC:4761 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.265 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Jai Prakash Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Hitesh Sanwal proxy counsel for Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 4. By means of the present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned First Information Report being F.I.R. No. 0018 of 2026 dated 29.01.2026, registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 324(2), 329(3), 333 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. at Police Station Sehaspur, District Dehradun. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ, order or direction commanding respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to take any coercive action against the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no.3 alleging that on 28.01.2026, about eight to ten armed persons forcibly entered upon the land claimed by the complainant and opened fire while asserting that they had been engaged by 2026:UHC:4761 the petitioners herein, with the intention of taking possession of the property in question. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that it is an admitted position that an agreement to sell had been executed between the parties with respect to the said property; that, the petitioners were already in possession of the land in question and, therefore, there was neither any occasion nor any necessity for them to employ any person to take forcible possession of the property or to threaten the complainant or any other person connected therewith. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. In this regard, a compounding application being I.A. No. 2 of 2026, supported by affidavits sworn by the petitioners as well as respondent no.3, has been filed on record, wherein it has been categorically stated that the dispute has been settled amicably and that the parties do not wish to pursue the matter any further. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 does not dispute the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and admits the factum of settlement between the parties. 9. The petitioners as well as respondent no.3 are present before this Court through Video Conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Upon 2026:UHC:4761 interaction with the Court, respondent no.3 has stated that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and that he has no objection if the impugned F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the Compounding Application (I.A. No. 2 of 2026) supported by the affidavits of the petitioners and respondent no.3, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties has arisen out of a private transaction relating to the land in question. The parties have voluntarily and amicably resolved all their inter se disputes and have decided to maintain cordial relations in future. Respondent no.3, who is present before the Court through Video Conferencing and has been duly identified by his learned counsel, has categorically stated that he has entered into the compromise of his own free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence, and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, has held that in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers to secure the ends of justice, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings arising out of 2026:UHC:4761 private and personal disputes where the parties have amicably settled their differences and the possibility of conviction is remote, provided that the offences do not involve heinous crimes or offences having serious impact on society at large. 12. Considering the nature of allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R., the settlement arrived at between the parties, the statement made by respondent no.3 before this Court, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary and arrived at without any coercion. 13. Accordingly, the Compounding Application (I.A. No. 2 of 2026) is allowed. Consequently, F.I.R. No. 0018 of 2026 dated 29.01.2026, registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 324(2), 329(3), 333 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. at Police Station Sehaspur, District Dehradun, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed. 14. The criminal writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 12.06.2026 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=6a812005bebfcf46f244 f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d 67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9c abfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd2 6690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.16 18:09:58 +05'30'