Uttarakhand High Court
22 July vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 22 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6396
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1090 of 2023
22 July, 2025
Anuj Panwar
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for respondent no.2
(appeared through V.C.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Present C482 application has been filed by the
applicant along with the joint compounding application
(IA/4/2025) for quashing the charge-sheet dated
08.04.2023, summoning/cognizance order dated
12.04.2023, State vs. Anuj Panwar, under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 504, 506 & 120-B IPC, Police Station
Kotwali Manglour, District Haridwar, pending in the
court of Judicial Magistrate-First, Roorkee, District
Hardwar on the basis of compromise entered into
between the parties.
2. 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.
1
2025:UHC:6396
3. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant was in judicial custody at
the time of filing the present application under Section
482 CrPC. However, the applicant has now been released
on bail, and in compliance with the order dated
15.07.2025 passed by this Court, has filed an affidavit
stating that the matter has been amicably resolved and
that respondent No.2 does not intend to pursue the
proceedings against the applicant.
5. Applicant-Anuj Panwar and respondent
no.2/informant-Pankaj Teswer are present in the Court
being duly identified by their respective counsel.
6. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that respondent no.2 has amicably resolved
their dispute with the applicant and does not want to
pursue with the criminal proceedings.
7. This Court interacted with the parties
specifically respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 stated
before the Court that he has no grievance against the
applicant; wants to live peacefully and he does not
want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.
8. 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.
2
2025:UHC:6396
9. 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 and 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.”
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/4/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise
arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the
result, the charge-sheet dated 08.04.2023,
summoning/cognizance order dated 12.04.2023, State
vs. Anuj Panwar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
504, 506 & 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali
Manglour, District Haridwar, pending in the court of
Judicial Magistrate-First, Roorkee, District Hardwar is
3
2025:UHC:6396
hereby quashed qua the applicant, subject to the
condition that applicant shall deposit Rs.20,000/-
before the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association
Advocates’ Welfare Fund within fifteen days from today
for the reason that the parties have wasted the valuable
public time of the investigating agency and further to
act as a deterrent against the applicant so that he
would not indulge in such criminal activities in future.
FIR and all subsequent proceedings pursuant to FIR be
also quashed qua the applicant only.
13. Present criminal misc. application thus
stands allowed.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.07.2025
AK
4