Hon’Ble Ashish Naithani vs Suraj Pailu And Another” on 14 July, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Hon’Ble Ashish Naithani vs Suraj Pailu And Another” on 14 July, 2025

             Office Notes,
                reports,                          COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
               orders or
             proceedings
SL.
      Date   or directions
No
                  and
              Registrar's                                                           2025:UHC:6090
              order with
              Signatures
                             C528 No.1110 of 2025
                             HON'BLE ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the Applicants.

2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA, for the State of
Uttarakhand/1.

3. Ms. Aananya Jain, learned counsel for the Respondent nos.2
and 3.

4. In the present Application filed under Section 528 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Applicants have put a
challenge to the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.04/2023,
“State Vs. Suraj Pailu and another“, under Sections 419 and 120-B of
IPC, and under Sections 66-D, 67 and 67-A of the IT Act, which is
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gairsain, District
Chamoli.

5. Applicants and Respondent no.2 are present in person.
Respondent no.3 – Munni Devi Negi, is present before this Court
through VC, who are duly identified by their respective counsels.

6. Respondent no.2, who suppose to be the father of Respondent
no.3, who is victim in the present matter, makes a statement before
this Court that since his daughter Respondent no.3, is got married and
wants to move further; and wishes that he does not want to proceed
with the matter any further, and so does his daughter Respondent
no.3 – Munni Devi Negi, who is appearing online. Learned counsel
for the private Respondents – Ms. Aananya Jain, affirms the
statement made by Respondent no.2 – Anand Singh Kanwasi.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicants makes a statement that the
photographs in question of Respondent no.3 Munni Devi Negi, for
which the allegations against the applicants is that that they had
circulated the photographs of Respondent no.3; the very instrument
the phone was confiscated and held by the learned Trial Court.

8. In view of this Court, whether question still remains that the
photographs alleged to have been already in circulation?

9. In regards to the photographs in question, the applicants make
a statement before this Court further that whatever remains in the
internet/cloud will be deleted.

10. With this condition along with direction that the very
instrument on which the photographs had been stored, will be
destroyed along with the Sim card, if any, or the data card, if any,
compounding application is allowed.

11. Along with C528 application, a compounding application (IA
No.1 of 2025) has been signed by the parties and has been filed,
which is duly supported by separate affidavits of Applicants and
private Respondent nos.2 and 3.

12. Learned counsel for the parties have filed their respective
affidavits along with the compounding application stating therein that
they do not want to pursue the present criminal case any further and a
settlement has reached between them.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.

14. In view of the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble the
Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported
in 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal)
No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of
Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, criminal proceedings can be
quashed by this Court, if this Court is satisfied that matter has been
settled between the parties amicably and parties are interested to
restore peace and harmony between them.

15. Keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be
met, if the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.04/2023, “State
Vs. Suraj Pailu and another“, under Sections 419 and 120-B of IPC,
and under Sections 66-D, 67 and 67-A of the IT Act, which is
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gairsain, District
Chamoli, are quashed.

16. In view of the above, the compounding application is
allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.04/2023, “State
Vs. Suraj Pailu and another“, under Sections 419 and 120-B of IPC,
and under Sections 66-D, 67 and 67-A of the IT Act, which is
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gairsain, District
Chamoli, are hereby quashed.

17. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application, filed under 528 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is disposed of
accordingly.

(ASHISH NAITHANI, J.)
14.07.2025
Nitesh/