Uttarakhand High Court
30 July vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 30 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6648
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 176 of 2024
30 July, 2025
Mohkam Singh
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Present C482 application has been filed by the
applicants along with the joint compounding application
(IA/22025) for quashing the FIR dated 03.08.2017,
charge-sheet dated 02.10.2018, cognizance/summoning
order dated 03.07.2019 and the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.1503 of 2019, State vs. Mohkam Singh,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, pending
in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,
District Haridwar 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
1
2025:UHC:6648
terms of the compromise arrived 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-Mohkam Singh and respondent
no.2-Mohammad Aslam are present in the Court being
duly identified by their respective counsel.
5. In the compounding application, it is stated
that respondent no.2 and the applicant have amicably
settled their dispute. Respondent No. 2 has expressed
that the matter pertains to a civil dispute, and in view of
the mutual compromise between the parties, he does not
wish to proceed with the criminal proceedings.
Accordingly, respondent No. 2 seeks to compound the
offence and does not intend to pursue the matter further.
6. 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 applicants to appear before the trial
court as accused to face the trial.
7. 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:6648
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/2/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived
at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1503 of 2019,
State vs. Mohkam Singh, under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 & 120-B IPC, pending in the court of learned
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are
hereby quashed qua the applicant. FIR No.276 of 2017
and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto also stand
quashed.
11. Present criminal misc. application thus stands
allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
30.07.2025
AK
3