[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1261/2025 on 16 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1767
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/1261/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned counsel
for the applicants.
2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy A.G.
along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned
A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Vishwast Kandpal, learned
counsel for private respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of the charge-sheet and the
cognizance/summoning order dated
05.08.2023 passed by the learned 1st
Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, BUDS Act,
of 2023, arising out of offences punishable
under Sections 420 and 120-B of the
I.P.C. and Sections 4/22 and 5/23 of the
Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes
Act, 2019.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged
by respondent no.2/complainant on
13.02.2023, alleging therein that one
Deewan Singh Karki was induced by
Bhuwan Chandra Joshi to invest money in
a company on the assurance of high
returns and profits. It is further alleged
that when the complainant and her
husband demanded the return of their
money on account of non-receipt of
2026:UHC:1767
promised profits, Bhuwan Chandra Joshi
issued a blank cheque. However, when the
said cheque was presented before the
bank, the same was dishonoured with the
remark "Insufficient Funds." On the basis
of the said allegations, the Investigating
Officer, after completion of investigation,
submitted the charge-sheet before the
competent court, upon which the learned
trial court took cognizance and summoned
the applicants to face trial.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants
would further submit that the dispute
between the applicants and respondent
no.2 has now been amicably settled. In
this regard, a compounding application
supported by affidavits of the applicants
and respondent no.2 has been filed before
this Court.
7. The applicants as well as respondent
no.2/complainant are present before the
Court through Video Conferencing and
have been duly identified by their
respective counsel. Upon interaction with
the Court, respondent no.2/complainant
has categorically stated that the dispute
has been settled amicably and he does not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
against the applicants any further, and
that the compromise has been entered
into voluntarily and without any coercion
or undue influence. It is, therefore, prayed
that the criminal proceedings pending
against the applicants be quashed in view
of the compromise.
8. Learned State counsel has opposed
the application. However, the factum of
compromise between the parties is not
2026:UHC:1767
disputed.
9. This Court has considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record. From the record, it appears
that the dispute between the parties is
predominantly private in nature, arising
out of a financial transaction, and the
parties have now amicably settled the
matter.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
303 has held that the High Court, in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal
proceedings in appropriate cases where
the dispute is essentially of a civil or
personal nature and the parties have
settled the matter amicably, provided that
such exercise of power would secure the
ends of justice and prevent abuse of the
process of the Court. The said principle
has been reiterated in Narinder Singh vs.
State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi
Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein it
has been held that criminal proceedings
arising out of private disputes with
overwhelmingly civil flavour may be
quashed where the parties have resolved
their disputes and continuation of the
proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of the Court.
11. In the present case, the parties have
amicably resolved their dispute, and the
complainant has categorically stated
before this Court that he does not wish to
prosecute the applicants any further. In
2026:UHC:1767
view of the compromise arrived at between
the parties, and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, continuation of
the criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose and would only result in
unnecessary harassment to the parties.
12. Accordingly, the compounding
application is allowed. Consequently, the
present C-528 application is also allowed.
The charge-sheet as well as the
cognizance/summoning order dated
05.08.2023 passed by the learned 1st
Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, BUDS Act,
of 2023, relating to offences under
Sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C. and
Sections 4/22 and 5/23 of the Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019,
along with the entire criminal proceedings,
are hereby quashed qua the applicants in
terms of the compromise entered into
between the parties.
13. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
16.03.2026
Mamta
2026:UHC:1767
