Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Ramji Shrivastava, Vinay Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent: Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A., Shankar Aggarwal, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 06-10-2026
Head Note :-
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 UHC 9052,
Judgment :-
1. Mr. Ramji Shrivastava and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Shankar Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent no.3.
2. By means of the present writ petitions, petitioners have sought quashing of the F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0063 of 2025, under Section 120- B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Buggawala, District Haridwar. It is reported that, during the course of investigation, Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were dropped, as petitioners belong too belong to the Scheduled Caste Community.
3. An F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.3 inter alia stating that someone impersonated and executed sale deed in favour of Kunwar Pal, who is paralyzed and is bedridden.
4. Mange Ram (Petitioner in WPCRL No.1719 of 2025) and Amit Kumar (Petitioner no.2 in WPCRL No.1643 of 2025) was witness of the said sale deed, while sale deed was executed in favour of Pooran Singh (Petitioner no.1 in WPCRL No.1643 of 2025). Now, joint compounding applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners and respondent no.3, duly supported by their respective affidavits. It is further stated that, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and have arrived at a settlement amongst themselves. Respondent no.3 has categorically stated that he does not wish to pursue the matter any further and has no objection if the proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. are brought to an end in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. He, therefore, submits that, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the stand taken by respondent no.3, the proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. may be permitted to be compounded in accordance with law.
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, petitioners and respondent no.3 are present in Court today, who are duly identified by their respective counsels.
8. Both the parties also made a statement that, in view of the settlement, they want to close the matter.
9. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the compounding application.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. In view of above discussion, the writ petitions are allowed. F.I.R./ Case Crime No.0063 of 2025, under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Buggawala, District Haridwar is hereby quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom, qua the petitioners.
