SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010110532026 WPCRL/1195/2026 Aman Thapa And Ors --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. By means of the present criminal writ petition filed 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 Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0075 of 2026 dated 06.05.2026, registered under Sections 117(2), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3) & 304(2) of the B.N.S. at Police Station Cantt., District Dehradun, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no.3 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners intercepted the complainant's vehicle, forcibly dragged him out, snatched his gold chain, assaulted him, and threw him out of his vehicle. It is further alleged that the petitioners took away cash amounting to ₹25,000/- and, upon his protest, threw him to the ground and assaulted him with an iron rod and sticks. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes. In this regard, a Compounding Application, being I.A. No. 1 of 2026, duly supported by separate affidavits sworn by the petitioners as well as respondent no.3, has been filed, wherein it has been specifically stated that the dispute has been settled voluntarily and amicably and that neither party wishes to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 7. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the compounding application; however, he does not dispute the factual position regarding the filing of the compromise application. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 fairly submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and does not dispute the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. He further submits that respondent no.3 has no objection if the impugned F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 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 interaction with the Court, respondent no.3 has categorically stated that the petitioners are pursuing their studies and that the dispute has now been amicably resolved. He has further stated that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, of his own free will, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence, 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 material brought on record, and considered the Compounding Application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) along with the affidavits filed in support thereof, this Court finds that the parties have voluntarily and amicably settled all their inter se disputes. The petitioners and respondent no.3, who are present before the Court, have unequivocally affirmed the settlement. Respondent no.3 has specifically stated that the compromise has been entered into of his own free will, without any coercion, inducement or undue influence, and that he does not wish to continue with the criminal proceedings. 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 authoritatively held that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice, 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 the offences are not heinous in nature or such as have a serious impact on society at large. 12. In the facts of the present case, having regard to the nature of the allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R., the voluntary settlement arrived at between the parties, the categorical statement made by respondent no.3 before this Court affirming the compromise, and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation 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 free from any element of coercion or undue influence. 13. Accordingly, the Compounding Application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026) stands allowed. Consequently, the Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0075 of 2026 dated 06.05.2026, registered at Police Station Cantt., District Dehradun, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 14. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 01.07.2026 mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2 44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf 09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b6 6dd26690a191648ab5d8dd0 04ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.02 17:54:34 +05'30'