C482/730/2024 of DEVYANI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 730 of 2024

09 July, 2025

Devyani

--Applicant

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents

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

-Presence:

Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the impugned FIR No.123 of 2016 registered at P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, Charge Sheet dated 07.10.2016, cognizance/summoning order dated 15.11.2016 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.630 of 2016 State Vs. Devyani, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

3. Along with the present C482 application, joint compounding application (IA/1/2024) is filed duly supported by separate affidavits by applicant, respondent No.2.

4. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that they have settled their dispute amicably on the intervention of respectable persons of society as well as the family members of both the parties and the respondent No.2 does not want to pursue with the case anymore.

5. Applicant-Devyani and respondent No.2-Shamsher Singh Tomar, are present before this Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent No.2 categorically stated that the matter is now amicably settled by them with the intervention of respectable persons of society as well as the family members of both the parties, therefore, he wants to end the matter with his free will and without any coercion and does not want to prosecute the applicant in the aforesaid matter any further.

6. Learned State Counsel raised preliminary objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable.

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 675and 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 of quashing. It is, however, different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such power.”

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.

2025:UHC:58939. Further, the Apex Court has permitted compounding of such offences in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another, (2008) 9 SCC 650.

10. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below:

“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and nocategory can be prescribed. ………………… In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

11. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that 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 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.

12. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/ 2024) is allowed.

2025:UHC:5893

13. In view of the above, the present C482 application is allowed in terms of the compromise. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.630 of 2016 State Vs. Devyani, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, is hereby quashed quathe applicant. Resultantly, Charge Sheet dated 07.10.2016 and FIR No. 123 of 2016, registered at P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, stand quashed qua the applicant.

14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

PNPREETI NEGIDigitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.07.09 16:00:02 +05'30'

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.07.2025