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. 1034 of 2026 Naseem And Others ..... Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others .... Respondents Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.3. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought quashing of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 13 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 352 of BNS, registered at Police Station Jhabreda, District Haridwar. 3. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the complainant in which it was alleged that the petitioners attacked them in the agricultural field with spade and other agricultural equipments and as such two persons suffered injuries. 4. Now, a compounding application, jointly signed by learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned senior counsel for the petitioners have been filed duly supported by affidavits of the parties. 5. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the injuries though were dangerous, but, not life threatening. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the parties have now entered into a settlement, therefore, the matter needs to be compounded. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 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, all the petitioners except petitioner nos.6 and 7 (who are in judicial custody) and the complainant (respondent no.3) are present before this Court, who are duly identified by their counsels. 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. 13 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 352 of BNS, registered at Police Station Jhabreda, District Haridwar, is hereby quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom, subject to payment of Rs.75,000/- by the petitioners in the account of Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association, within 24 hours. 12. Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 18.06.2026 Ujjwal