2026:UHC:901 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/191/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Anjali Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5/complainant. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge- sheet as well as the cognizance/ summoning order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 3642 of 2025, under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents/ complainant lodged an F.I.R. alleging that applicant no.1 cheated them by taking money on the false promise of arranging a job through outsourcing in a Government department. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge- sheet against the applicants, and the learned trial court took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 16.12.2025. 2026:UHC:901 6. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. A joint compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2026), duly supported by affidavits of the applicants and the complainant, has been filed before this Court stating that the entire amount allegedly taken has been returned to the complainant and that the complainant does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 7. Applicants and respondent nos. 2 to 4 are present in person before this Court, while respondent nos. 3 and 5 are present through Video Conferencing. On being interacted with, respondent nos. 2 to 5 have categorically stated that the dispute has been voluntarily and amicably settled; the amount in question has been refunded; and they have no subsisting grievance against the applicants and do not intend to prosecute the matter further. 8. Learned State Counsel has opposed the compounding application on the ground that the offences alleged are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.; however, he does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties arises out of a monetary transaction based on an alleged assurance of employment. The 2026:UHC:901 matter is essentially of a private and personal nature having predominantly civil flavour. The complainant has received the entire amount and has voluntarily entered into a compromise without any coercion or undue influence. 10. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences where the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and the parties have amicably settled the matter, provided that the offences are not heinous or of serious impact on society. 11. The said principle has been further elaborated in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, observing that the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the antecedents of the accused, and whether continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings involving offences arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile or similar transactions, which are essentially private in nature, can be quashed on the basis of compromise, provided the offence does not fall within 2026:UHC:901 the category of serious or heinous crimes affecting society at large. 12. In the present case, the allegations relate to an alleged promise of providing employment and a monetary transaction between private individuals. The complainant has already been fully compensated and has clearly stated before this Court that he has no objection to the quashing of the proceedings. Therefore, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. 13. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 3642 of 2025 under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) B.N.S., and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. 14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 13.02.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:901