Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures C-482 No.1166 of 2022 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Vinod Joshi proxy counsel for Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State.

3. Ms. Komal Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

4. The present C-482 application has been filed seeking quashing of the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 08.07.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Roorkee, District Hardwar in Criminal Case No. 389 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 506, 427 & 411 of I.P.C. as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially an F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of respondent no.2 alleging that an altercation had taken place between the parties, during which applicant no.1, allegedly armed with a revolver, extended threats to respondent no.2 and his associates. It is further alleged in the said F.I.R. that applicant no.1, along with other co-accused, assaulted respondent no.2.

6. He would further submit that now the parties have amicably settled the dispute. In support thereof, a compounding application (I.A. No. 6 of 2025) has been filed along with affidavits of the applicants as well as respondent no. 2 complainant, wherein it has been categorically stated that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and that respondent no. 2 does not wish to prosecute the applicants any further.

7. The applicants as well as respondent no. 2 are present before this Court through Video Conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Upon interaction with the Court, respondent no. 2 has unequivocally stated that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence, and that he has no objection if the criminal proceedings against the applicants are quashed.

8. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the compounding application on the ground that the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. is non- compoundable. However, he does not dispute the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute in question is purely personal in nature, arising out of a private altercation between the parties, and does not involve any element of public interest or societal impact. It is further submitted that in view of the amicable settlement, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and that this Court is empowered to quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal