Shahlu Alias Sahib Hussain v. State of Uttarakhand

UKHC010129402026

2026:UHC:6473 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

CRLR/564/2026

Shahlu Alias Sahib Hussain --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

Ms. Radha Arya, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶2This Criminal Revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated

29.01.2020 passed by learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.3898 of 2012. Revisionist has also challenged the judgment dated

14.05.2026 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2022. By the impugned judgment, revisionist has been convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of ₹5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo fifteen days additional imprisonment. He has also been convicted under Section 504 I.P.C. and has been directed to pay fine of ₹500/- and, in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo 5 days additional imprisonment. Revisionist has also been convicted under Section 506 I.P.C. and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of ₹1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, he was UKHC010129402026

2026:UHC:6473 sentenced to undergo ten days' additional imprisonment. It was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶3A joint compounding application, duly signed by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned counsel for the revisionist, has been filed before this Court. In the said application, it has been averred that the dispute between the parties arose on account of irrigation water relating to their agricultural fields. It is further stated that the revisionist and respondent nos. 2 and 3 are neighbours and residents of the same village, and with the intervention of respectable members of the society, they have amicably resolved their dispute. Consequently, they have prayed that the offences, being compoundable in nature, be permitted to be compounded in accordance with law.

¶4Today, revisionist and respondent nos.2 & 3 are present before the Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsels.

¶5Both the parties also made a statement that, in view of the settlement, they want to close the matter.

¶6Having regard to the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and the fact that the offences involved are compoundable, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the impugned orders to stand. Consequently, the Criminal Revision is allowed, and the impugned judgment and orders dated 29.01.2020 and 14.05.2026 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶7Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Alok Mahra J.)

28.07.2026 Arpan

ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20 dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB 987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.07.28 18:01:15 +05'30'