C482/2198/2022 of VIRENDRA MALHOTRA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2198 of 2022

16thMay, 2025

Virendra Malhotra ………..Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another ………..Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicant.Mr. Vipul Painuli, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Gaurav Pawar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present C482 application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge sheet dated 10.09.2019 and summoning order dated 22.10.2019 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5442 of 2019, State Vs. Richa Malhotra & others, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, pending in the court of learned IV[th] Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, qua, the present applicant.

2. joint compounding application has been moved on behalf of the parties, supported by their respective affidavits, seeking to compound offences under the aforesaid sections.

3. It is contended in the compounding application by the parties that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the loss which has been caused to respondent no.2-informant has been made good by the applicant-Virendra Malhotra.

2025:UHC:4015

4. Both the applicant and respondent no.2 are present before this Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction with the parties they stated that they have amicably settled their dispute and specifically respondent no.2 submitted that the loss which has been caused to him has been made good by applicant and there is no reason to continue with the present criminal proceedings, qua, the applicant.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has raised an objection on the ground that respondent no.2-Vijendra Chauhan is the C.E.O. of the company, therefore, the compromise cannot be entered into between the parties.

6. The objection raised by learned State counsel is totally bereft of merit because respondent no.2- Vijendra Chauhan is the C.E.O. of his own company who sustained losses, which has been made good.

7. 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 bar to the exercise of power ofquashing. It is, however, different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such power.”

8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, there would remain 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

2025:UHC:4015

of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

9. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2022) is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As result, the impugned charge sheet dated 10.09.2019 and summoning order dated 22.10.2019 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5442 of 2019, State Vs. Richa Malhotra & others, under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, pending in the court of learned IV[th]Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, qua, the present applicant stand quashed. 10. C482 application stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.05.2025