2022:UHC:14728 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C4 8 2 / 7 3 4 / 2 0 1 8 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present C-482 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, summoning/cognizance order dated 11.01.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 628 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case qua the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no.2 lodged the F.I.R. alleging therein that one Pradeep Sharma, by impersonating certain persons namely Musu and Ismaeil, had purchased a piece of land fraudulently. He would further submit that the present applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. and during investigation, solely on the basis of the statement of co-accused Pradeep Sharma, the applicant has been implicated in the 2022:UHC:14728 instant case. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that except the statement of co-accused Pradeep Sharma, there is no independent or cogent evidence available on record against the present applicant. He would submit that even as per the statement of Pradeep Sharma, the allegation against the applicant is only to the extent that the original witness of the sale deed did not appear and some other person was allegedly made to sign as witness in the sale deed. It is submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant in the alleged commission of offence and the applicant is neither beneficiary of the transaction nor party to the alleged sale deed. 7. He would further submit that the dispute between the parties has subsequently been amicably resolved with the intervention of respectable persons of the society and respondent no.2 does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the present applicant. In this regard, a joint compromise application being I.A. No. 3367 of 2024, duly supported by affidavits of the applicant as well as respondent, has been filed before this Court stating therein that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure or undue influence. 8. Learned State counsel would oppose the application on the ground that the offences alleged against the applicant are 2022:UHC:14728 serious and non-compoundable in nature. However, he does not dispute the factum of compromise entered into between the parties. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Although the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature, the High Court, in appropriate cases, may quash the criminal proceedings where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. 11. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings involving non- compoundable offences can be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court and where the dispute is essentially private and personal in nature. Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while considering compromise between the parties. Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent powers of the High Court are to be exercised to 2022:UHC:14728 secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of Court. 12. In the present case, this Court finds that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and has been implicated subsequently during investigation mainly on the basis of the statement of co- accused person. No specific overt act has been assigned to the present applicant in the charge-sheet. Moreover, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and respondent no.2 does not wish to prosecute the matter any further. Considering the nature of allegations, the material available on record and the compromise entered into between the parties, this Court is of the view that the possibility of conviction of the applicant is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 13. Accordingly, the present C-482 application deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the charge-sheet, summoning/cognizance order dated 11.01.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 628 of 2018, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case, are hereby quashed qua the present applicant. 14. The present C-482 application is accordingly allowed. 15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 13.05.2026 Mamta 2022:UHC:14728