UKHC010019882026 2026:UHC:7576 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/290/2026 Sadab --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Abhishek Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.4. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R./Case Crime No.640 of 2025, under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station SIIDCUL, District Haridwar. 3. An F.I.R. came to be lodged by respondent no.3, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner and respondent no.3 came into contact with each other through Instagram in the year 2023, whereafter they developed friendship. It is further alleged that during the course of their friendship, the petitioner took respondent no.3 to various places and, on certain occasions, stayed with her in a hotel, where he allegedly committed rape upon her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are vague and omnibus in nature, inasmuch as, no specific date, time or particular occasion of the alleged incidents UKHC010019882026 2026:UHC:7576 has been disclosed. It is further submitted that the dispute has now been amicably resolved between the parties. In support thereof, a joint compounding application has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.3, duly supported by the respective affidavits of the petitioner and respondent no.3/complainant. Respondent no.3 has stated in her affidavit that her marriage has now been fixed with another person, with whom she is happy, and that she does not wish to pursue the present proceedings any further. It is, thus, submitted that in view of the subsequent settlement between the parties and the categorical stand taken by the complainant, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would not advance the cause of justice. 5. In the present case, this Court is confronted with a peculiar circumstance wherein the F.I.R. alleges commission of a serious offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) I.P.C. However, respondent no.3/complainant has unequivocally expressed her unwillingness to pursue the prosecution any further. She has stated that her marriage has been fixed and that she intends to settle in her matrimonial life, whereas continuation of the criminal proceedings would adversely affect her peace, dignity and personal well-being. Her stand is neither tentative nor equivocal; rather, she has consistently maintained, including in the affidavit placed on record, that she does not wish to support the prosecution and desires that the proceedings be brought to an end. It is also borne out from the record that the parties have amicably resolved their differences and have arrived at a mutual settlement. In such circumstances, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceedings is unlikely to serve any fruitful purpose and may instead result in further distress to the complainant, apart UKHC010019882026 2026:UHC:7576 from unnecessarily prolonging the litigation and consuming valuable judicial time. 6. Today, petitioner and respondent no.3 are present before the Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsels. Respondent no.3 reiterated the aforesaid statements. 7. Both the parties also made a statement that, in view of the settlement, they want to close the matter. 8. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the compounding application. 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 petitioner deserves 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. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to burry the hatchet for all times to come. 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. UKHC010019882026 2026:UHC:7576 11. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. F.I.R./Case Crime No.640 of 2025, under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station SIIDCUL, District Haridwar, is hereby quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom. 12. Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Alok Mahra J.) 21.08.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04 85365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D 9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2 CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.08.21 17:03:22 +05'30'