2025:UHC:3236 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2429 of 2023 29th April, 2025 Shakeel Ahmad and another ………..Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Basant Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Present C482 application has been filed by the applicants along with compounding application for quashing the impugned Charge Sheet No.81 of 2016 dated 29.06.2016 and summoning order dated 22.08.2017 in Criminal Case No.4281 of 2017, State Vs. Shakil Ahmad and another, under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. For the said purpose, a joint compounding application has been moved by the parties, supported by their respective affidavits, in which it has been narrated by both the parties that they have settled their dispute and do not want to proceed with the instant criminal proceedings. 3. On interaction with both the parties, they stated that they have settled all their disputes amicably and do not want to prolong the matter any further as they are cousins. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has formally objected to the compounding application in view of offences being non- compoundable in the present case. 5. 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 1 2025:UHC:3236 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.” 6. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is convinced that once the parties have decided to settle their dispute amicably, no fruitful purpose would be served to ask the parties to face the trial, in a case, which would ultimately result into acquittal as the said exercise would be a futile exercise between the trial court, given the compromise entered between the parties. 7. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2023) is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the impugned Charge Sheet No.81 of 2016 dated 29.06.2016 and summoning order dated 22.08.2017 in Criminal Case No.4281 of 2017, State Vs. Shakil Ahmad and another, under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed, qua, the applicant. 8. C482 application stands disposed-off, in the aforesaid terms. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.04.2025 SK 2