2026:UHC:4812 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.856 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sachin Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Trilok Chandra, 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. 0136 of 2026 dated 03.05.2026, registered under Sections 115, 351(2), 64(1) of the B.N.S. at Police Station Doiwala, 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 petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned First Information Report has been lodged by respondent no.3 alleging, inter alia, that she was residing as a tenant in the house of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner, who is a B.M.S. doctor, used to impart tuition to her minor children and, during the course of their acquaintance, the petitioner and respondent no.3 developed friendly 2026:UHC:4812 relations. According to the allegations in the F.I.R., the petitioner thereafter established physical relations with the complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that, the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are wholly false, concocted and fabricated;that, the petitioner had purchased a parcel of land from respondent no.3 herself and had also constructed a house thereon, in which respondent no.3 is presently residing as a tenant. It is further submitted that another sale deed pertaining to a different piece of land was executed, wherein respondent no.3 had signed as an attesting witness, and the said sale deed was executed on the very next day after the lodging of the present F.I.R., which, according to the petitioner, belies the allegations and casts serious doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution case. 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 petitioner 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 2026:UHC:4812 respondent no.3 does not dispute the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and admits the factum of settlement between the parties. 9. The petitioner as well as respondent no.3 are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Upon 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 petitioner and respondent no.3, this Court finds the parties have voluntarily and amicably resolved all their inter se disputes. Respondent no.3, who is present before the Court and has been duly identified by his learned counsel, has categorically stated that she 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 2026:UHC:4812 justice, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings arising out of 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. 0136 of 2026 dated 03.05.2026, registered at Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradunalong 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.) 15.06.2026 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=6a812005bebfcf46f244f 3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d 67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26 690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.16 18:22:37 +05'30'