Uttarakhand High Court
25 March vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 25 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2141
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.2025 of 2022
25 March, 2025
Pushkal Nagyan
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Compounding application (IA/3/2023) has been
moved on behalf of the parties seeking to compound the
offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC along with entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.706 of 2022, (Case Crime
No.264 of 2022), State vs. Nikesh Panchpute & others,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
3. 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 terms of the compromise arrived
at between the parties.
4. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
2025:UHC:2141
5. Applicant (Pushkal Nagyam), respondent no.2
(Anup Kumar, appeared through V.C.) and respondent
no.5-victim (Deepak Saini) are present in the Court being
duly identified by their respective counsel.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the
applicant that the co-accused, namely, Nikesh Panchpute,
Alok Mahajan and K.S. Bisht after facing the trial have
been acquitted by the learned trial court vide judgment and
order dated 19.06.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.706 of
2022, State vs. Alok Mahajan & others.
7. It is also point to be noted that the Pushkal
Nagyan (present applicant) was only allegedly introduced
Deepak Saini to K.S. Bisht, thereafter, K.S. Bisht
introduced Deepak Saini to Nikesh Panchpute and Alok
Mahajan, who allegedly frauded him of Rs.70 lakh. The
said fact could not have been proved before the trial court.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. Since the parties have entered into
compromise, therefore, there is no useful purpose for
2025:UHC:2141
keeping this criminal case pending and it will be a futile
exercise to ask the applicant to appear before the trial
court as accused to face the trial when the victim-Deepak
Saini has settled the matter amicably with the applicant
and he does not want to prosecute the applicant.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would 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. 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.
12. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/3/2023) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.706 of 2022, (Case Crime
No.264 of 2022), State vs. Nikesh Panchpute & others, u/s
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, pending in the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District
Haridwar are hereby quashed qua the applicant.
13. Present criminal misc. application thus stands
allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
25.03.2025
AK
