C482/1090/2023 of ANUJ PANWAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1090 of 202322 July, 2025

Anuj Panwar

Versus

--Applicant

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 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.

3. Learned State Counsel raised 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 futile exercise to ask the applicant to appear before the trial court as accused to face the trial.

2025:UHC:6396

9. So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of 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 abar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such 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 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 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

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 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