No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-482 No. 678 of 2022 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, learned counsel for respondent no. 2/ complainant. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with the prayer to quash/ set-aside the chargesheet, cognizance/ summoning as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1798 of 2022, State Vs. Manish Gupta, under Sections 376, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending in the court of learned CJM, Dehradun on the basis of compromise between the parties. 5. In this case, respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against the applicant in which she has alleged that the applicant and the complainant were friends for last more than three years and the applicant on the false pretext of marriage established physical relations with her without her consent. Even a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that even after the said incident when the applicant have established physical relations with the complainant, the relations between them continued and FIR was lodged in the case on 23.11.2021. 6. Now, Compounding Application is filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offences between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise. 8. Parties are present before this Court and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Parties have also filed their respective affidavits stating the facts of compromise between them. 9. The Court interacted with the parties. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 would submit that FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding and misconception. Even otherwise also, both of them were major at the time of alleged incident and admittedly were in relationship for last more than three years before lodging of the FIR. Respondent no. 2 has further submitted that she has amicably settled her dispute with the applicant and she does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 10. At this stage, learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non- compoundable. 11. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page 675, has permitted compounding of non- compoundable offences with the permission of Court. 12. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of its judgments, has observed that in cases where because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings as continuation of the same would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused. 13. Following the aforesaid ratio, the present compounding application is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1798 of 2022, State Vs. Manish Gupta, under Sections 376, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending in the court of learned CJM, Dehradun, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. FIR and charge- sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed. 14. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 15.05.2026 Ujjwal