Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5361
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 709 of 2024
23rd June, 2025
Rizwan .........Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others .......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Manoj Bhatt proxy counsel for Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal,
learned counsel for petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with Ms. Shweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Vikas Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral).
Present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to
quash the impugned F.I.R. No. 0093 of 2024 dated
07.05.2024 under Section 354, 342, 363 I.P.C. and Section
7/8 of the Protection from Children from Sexual Offences
Act (in short ‘POCSO’) registered at Police Station Kotwali,
District Pithoragarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. has been
registered by respondent no.2/complainant under Section 365
I.P.C. by respondent no.2/complainant alleging therein that
her daughter aged 14 years is missing and after a lot of
efforts she could not be found; that, later on after the
daughter of the complainant being recovered and on the basis
of statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the petitioner was
taken into custody. The petitioner moved his bail application
before the trial court, which stood dismissed vide order dated
1
2025:UHC:5361
10.06.2024.
3. Along with the present petition a Compounding
Application IA No.1/2024 duly supported by separate
affidavits has been filed by the parties stating therein that the
petitioner and the respondent no.3/complainant have settled
their dispute amicably outside the Court and now the
respondent no.3 does not want to prosecute the petitioner any
further. The petitioner is in jail. Mohamad Akhlaq, brother of
the petitioner is doing parvi on his behalf.
4. Today, learned proxy counsel appearing for the
petitioner seeks adjournment on the ground that the arguing
counsel is unavailable and the parties themselves are not
present to press the compounding application.
5. A perusal of the record would reveal that on
02.06.2025, this Court had directed the parties to appear in
person to press the compounding application. However,
today, neither the arguing counsel nor the parties have
appeared.
6. It thus appears that the parties are not interested in
pursuing the compounding application and the same has been
filed merely to misuse the process of law and waste the
valuable time of the Court. Such conduct is deprecated as it
unnecessarily burdens the judicial system and the Registry of
the Court.
7. Accordingly, the compounding application is
dismissed with cost of `5000/- to be deposited by the
petitioner in the account of Uttarakhand High Court
Advocates Welfare Fund, High Court Bar Association,
Nainital within two weeks from today.
2
2025:UHC:5361
8. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has
sought quashing of the impugned F.I.R. on the basis of an
alleged compromise between the petitioner and respondent
no.3, supported by affidavits and a compounding application.
However, since the compounding application has been
dismissed, the present petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R.
does not survive. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition
stands dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.06.2025
Mamta
3