The Uttarakhand High Court reaffirmed that when parties enter into a mutual compromise during the pendency of a criminal revision, the petition may be dismissed as infructuous. This order upholds prevailing procedural practice and provides binding authority within the jurisdiction, particularly for criminal matters resolved by compromise before adjudication.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CLR/46/2025 of LAXMAN DAS KHERA Vs SHARDA GUPTA |
| CNR | UKHC010065142025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; procedural reaffirmation |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
When parties mutually enter into a compromise during the pendency of a criminal revision petition, and both sides submit to the Court that the matter is settled, the Court may dismiss the revision as infructuous. This approach avoids unnecessary judicial determination where there is nothing left to adjudicate in view of the settlement. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Parties to the revision petition mutually entered into a compromise and submitted to the Court that the dispute stands resolved, rendering the pending criminal revision infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that criminal revision petitions may be dismissed as infructuous where parties have settled the dispute.
- Lawyers can advise parties to settle, knowing that the High Court may dismiss such petitions as infructuous without proceeding to judgment on merits.
- For ongoing matters where compromise is reached, an application to dismiss for infructuousness is a recognized procedural route.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court acknowledged the statement of learned counsel for both parties that a compromise had been entered into.
- There was consensus between both sides that, in light of the compromise, the criminal revision was rendered infructuous.
- Based on this mutual settlement and absence of subsisting dispute, the Court dismissed the revision as infructuous, declining to consider merits where nothing survived for adjudication.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Informed the Court that the parties have entered into a compromise.
Respondent (Caveator)
- Agreed that a settlement was reached, and supported dismissal of the revision as infructuous.
Factual Background
The criminal revision originated from a dispute between the parties. During the pendency of the revision petition, both parties reached a settlement and compromised their dispute. Through their counsel, they jointly informed the Court of this compromise, requesting that the revision be dismissed as infructuous.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies established procedural practice, affirming existing law.