HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 726 of 2024

06 May, 2025 Rishi Ram and Others --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the applicants.

Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present C482 application has been filed by the applicants along with the compounding application (IA/1/2024) for quashing cognizance order dated 04.10.2008 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1584 of 2008 (674 of 2015), Sunil vs. Hosiyar Singh & others under Sections 452, 354, 357, 352, 330, 348, 342, 323, 195, 120B, 220 IPC, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Haridwar.

3. The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that one of the offences sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.

5. Applicant no.1 (Rishi Ram), applicant no.2 (Riyaz Ali), applicant no.3 (Mohd. Nawab), respondent no.2 (Sunil Kumar), respondent no.3 (Sunita) and respondent no.4 (Sanjo) are present in the Court being duly identified by their respective counsel.

6. In the compounding application, it has been stated that the applicants and respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court; have no grievance against each other and respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 do not want to prosecute the applicants in any manner and want to withdraw the criminal proceedings pending against them.

7. Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to ask the applicant to appear before the trial court as accused to face the trial.

8. So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 while dealing with the matrimonial matters has held as below: -

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”

9. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings after settlement. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2024) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1584 of 2008 (674 of 2015), Sunil vs. Hosiyar Singh & others, under Sections 452, 354, 357, 352, 330, 348, 342, 323, 195, 120B, 220 IPC, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Haridwar are hereby quashed.

12. Present criminal m