Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Anjali Zindal & Anr. ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 6 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI RAKESH THAPLIYAL
November 6, 2023
Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 274 of 2018
Smt. Anjali Zindal & Anr. ............Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ..........Respondents.
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr. Ramji Shrivastava
Counsel for the State: Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms.
Meenakshi Sharma, Brief Holder.
Counsel for the private respondent: Mr. Pawan Mishra.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following Order:
1. The instant compounding application being IA No. 1
of 2023, has been moved for compounding of the
offences punishable under Sections 467 and 468 IPC,
Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun pending in the
court of Judicial Magistrate, I Dehradun.
2. Applicants - Smt. Anjali Zindal and Smt. Madhu
Singla are present in the Court and duly identified by
their counsels and victim Smt. Asha Mitra (wife of the
complainant), is also present in the Court and duly
identified by her counsel. This compounding application is
supported by the affidavits of the applicants and the
victim. Xerox copies of the Aadhar card signed by the
parties themselves and attested by their respective learned
counsel are filed and kept on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, a first
information report was lodged on 17.07.2009, by one
Amitava Mitra-respondent no. 2 against six persons,
wherein, after thorough investigation final report was
filed on 11.11.2009, against which protest petition was
filed. Subsequently, the final report was rejected and the
protest petition was treated as a complaint and,
2
thereafter, after recording statements under Section 200
and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court by order dated
21.07.2017, issued summons to Smt. Madhu Singla and
Smt. Anjali Zindal for the offences punishable under
Sections 467 and 468 IPC, and the two witnesses,
namely, Harjeet Chawla and Vijay Kumar Gupta, who
were the witnesses of the disputed lease deed, they were
also summoned under Section 120B IPC.
4. After taking cognizance on the complaint, and
issuing summons, the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 706 of 2013 along with summoning
order are challenged in the instant petition by Smt. Anjali
Zindal and Smt. Madhu Singla. The co-ordinate Bench by
order dated 17.02.2018 stayed the summoning order.
5. Respondent no. 2-the complainant Amitava Mitra
died on 27.09.2017, and, thereafter, wife of respondent
no. 2, though, earlier, was not the respondent, moved
this compounding application, which is supported the
affidavit of applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2 as well as
with the affidavit of wife of respondent no. 2, i.e., Smt.
Asha Mitra.
6. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicants submits that Smt. Asha Mitra, being wife of
respondent no. 2 is also a victim, and is competent to file
an affidavit in support of the compounding application.
7. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel appears for Smt.
Asha Mitra, whose affidavit is also filed in support of the
compounding application.
8. It is contended in the compounding application,
which is supported by the affidavits of the applicants as
3
well as wife of the complainant, that during pendency of
the present C482 application with the assistance of their
well wishers the parties have entered into compromise
and settled their disputes amicably outside the Court and
the settlement/compromise also reduced in writing on
07.07.2023, with certain terms and conditions including
withdrawal of the civil and criminal litigation pending
before the Revenue Courts including the present
proceedings. It is further contended in the compounding
application that pursuant to said compromise dated
07.07.2023, parties also filed joint application before the
Board of Revenue in Revision No. 171 of 2018-19, Asha
Mitra vs. Smt. Madhu Singla & Ors., arising from the
order dated 01.03.2019, passed by the Assistant
Collector, Dehradun in Revenue Case No. 07 of2008-09,
which, in fact, the proceedings under Section 229-B of
the UPZA&LR Act. A copy of compromise entered
between the parties dated 07.07.2023 and application
moved before the Board of Revenue is enclosed as
Annexure 2 and Annexure 3 to this compounding
application.
It is further contended in para 10 of the
compounding application that after the aforesaid
amicable settlement/compromise, wife of the
complainant has also executed two registered sale deeds
dated 07.07.2023, in favour of Thakur Das Singla and
Sandeep Zindal, which are also annexed in the
compounding application.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as
learned counsel for the respondent submits that since
both the parties have entered with amicable settlement
by way of compromise dated 07.07.2023, and pursuant
thereto, two sale deeds have been executed and the
4
dispute is civil in nature, therefore, continuation of this
criminal proceeding is nothing but a futile exercise. It is
further contended that since amicable settlement has
been entered between the parties, therefore, there is no
chance of conviction, if the proceeding is continued.
10. Only objection raised by Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned
A.G.A. for the State is that the offences punishable under
Section 467 and 468 IPC are non-compoundable.
11. The learned counsel for both the parties placed
reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
Case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana &
anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675 as well as in the case of Nikhil
Merchant vs. C.B.I. (2008) 9 SCC 677.
12. Both the counsel submits that in view of the
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid cases, since the dispute between the parties
are purely civil in nature, and both the parties have
entered into compromise with amicable settlement, the
proceedings pending before the court below can be
quashed by allowing the compounding application.
13. After hearing learned counsel for the applicants as
well as learned counsel for the victim and also the
learned State Counsel, this Court is of the view that this
compounding application is deserve to be allowed, since,
both the parties have entered into compromise.
14. In view of the observation as above, the instant
compounding application is allowed. The proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 706 of 2013, Amitava Mitra vs. Sri
Thakur Singla & Ors., for the offences punishable under
Sections 467 and 468 IPC pending in the court of Judicial
5
Magistrate-I Dehradun are quashed. Accordingly, the
present petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
disposed of.
__________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Parul
