Uttarakhand High Court
July vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 1 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5571
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 985 of 2025
01 July, 2025
Ramu Ram Tholiya
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Yogesh Pant, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA along with Mr. Rakesh Negi,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Harshi Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Present C528 application has been filed by the
applicant along with the joint compounding application
(IA/1/2025) for quashing the charge-sheet dated
19.02.2024; cognizance and summoning order dated
24.04.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No.531 of 2024, under Sections 420, 120B, 34 IPC
and Section 66D I.T. Act, State vs. Ramu Ram Tholia &
others, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar
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
1
2025:UHC:5571
at between the parties.
3. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
4. Applicant-Ramu Ram Tholiya and respondent
no.2/informant-Parwati Chand are present in the Court
being duly identified by their respective counsel.
5. 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.
6. This Court interacted with the parties
specifically respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 stated
before the Court that she has no grievance against the
applicant; want to live peacefully and she does not
want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.
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 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.”
2
2025:UHC:5571
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/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.531 of 2024, under
Sections 420, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 66D I.T. Act, State
vs. Ramu Ram Tholia & others, pending in the court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima,
District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed qua the
applicant. FIR No.61 of 2022 and the charge-sheet filed
pursuant thereto also stand quashed.
12. Present criminal misc. application thus stands
allowed.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
01.07.2025
AK
3