VASEEM AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Uttarakhand judgment dated 2025-11-14. VASEEM AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s SL. D a t e o r d i r e ct i o n s N o . COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s 2025:UHC:10128 o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s WPCRL No. 1445 of 2025 With (Compounding Appl. No. 01 of 2025) Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. D. S. Mehta, learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Jitendra Singh Bangare, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. 4. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alongwith compounding application and the same is supported with the affidavits of petitioner and respondent no. 2. 5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner, has sought quashing of the impugned FIR dated 17. 10. 2025 being FIR No. 376 of 2025 under Section 109, 351(2) & 352 of B. N. S. at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. 6. As per Court’s order dated 13. 11.
2025 in the light of the compounding application, so filed by the parties, the petitioner-Vaseem Ahmad, son of Shameem Ahmad, who is alleged to be the assailant in the present matter, is in judicial custody in Sub District Jail, Haldwani, who had been called for through V. C. for interaction. 7. Petitioner has made his appearance through V. C. from Sub District Jail, Haldwani and respondent no. 2 is present in the Court. They are being identified by their respective counsels. 8. After interacting with the petitioner, with the aid of the Jailer, Sub-District Jail, Haldwani, and also after interacting with respondent no. 2, this Court thinks that the grounds for compounding the matter are sufficient. 9. Learned counsel for the parties have filed their respective affidavits along with the compounding application stating therein that they do not wish to pursue the present criminal case any further and a compromise has been entered between them. 10.
Learned State counsel has opposed the compromise application and submits that some of the offences are not compoundable. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. In view of the principle of law laid down by Ho’ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court, if this Court is satisfied that matter has been settled between the parties amicably and parties are interest to restore peace and harmony between them. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the above, the compounding application is allowed. The impugned FIR No. 376 of 2025 under Section 109, 351(2) & 352 of B. N. S. at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital is hereby quashed. 14. The Jailor, Sub District Jail, Haldwani is directed to release the petitioner-Vaseem Ahmad forthwith without any condition in case he is not wanted in any other case. 15.
Accordingly instant writ petition stands disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J. ) 14. 11. 2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGHDN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2. 5. 4. 20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGHDate: 2025. 11. 18 16:51:08 +05'30'
Source: High Court of Uttarakhand. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.