2025:UHC:1284 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Compounding Application (IA No. 1 of 2025) In Writ Petition Criminal No. 110 of 2025 24 February, 2025 Gajraj Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Medha Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State /respondent nos. 1 & 2 Mr. Vishwasth Kandpal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Apoorv Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------- By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought quashing of FIR dated 19.08.2023, arising out of FIR No. 478 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The impugned FIR is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Allegation against the petitioners is that after taking a crop loan from ING Vysya Bank, Branch Rudrapur in the year 2014, they forged a No Dues Certificate, alleged to have been issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank, Rudrapur, in which NG Vysya Bank was merged in 2015. 2. It is contended that no wrongful benefit was obtained by petitioners on the strength of No Objection Certificate. 3. A compounding application, jointly signed by counsel for petitioners and counsel for respondent no. 3/complainant has been filed, duly supported by affidavits of petitioners and complainant/respondent 1 2025:UHC:1284 no. 3. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh (respondent no. 3) has been authorized by Kotak Mahindra Bank to withdraw or defend suits, complaints and also to enter into compromise on behalf of the bank. In support of this submission, he has drawn attention of this Court to a document contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is Resolution No. 257D of the Financial Year 2023-24 signed by Senior Executive Vice President & Company Secretary. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the loan taken by petitioners from ING Vysya Bank has been completely repaid by them to Kotak Mahindra Bank, and the Discharge Certificate issued by Authorized Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank dated 26.11.2024, to the petitioners is enclosed as Annexure- 3 to the writ petition. She, thus, submits that the matter deserves to be compounded, as parties have now arrived at a settlement. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that he has no objection, if the matter is compounded, as now, all the issues between the parties have been resolved and respondent no. 3 does not want to prosecute the petitioners. 7. Petitioners and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh (respondent no. 3) are present before this Court. All the parties are duly identified by their respective counsels. Petitioners as well as respondent no.3 stated that since the entire loan amount, along with interest, has been repaid by petitioners and a Discharge 2 2025:UHC:1284 Certificate has also been issued to them, and since Kotak Mahindra Bank has not suffered any financial loss on account of the No Dues Certificate, which allegedly was forged by the petitioners, therefore, the bank has decided to enter into a compromise with the petitioners. Thus, he submits that the matter may be compounded. 8. Learned State counsel, however, submits that he has no objection, if the matter is compounded. He, however, points out that Sections 467, 468 & 471 IPC are not compoundable. 9. Having regard to the nature of offence and also considering the broad guidelines issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & others Vs State of Punjab & another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, request of the petitioner deserves to be acceded to. 10. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and, that being so, continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and injustice. Rather, it would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Ends of justice would be met only if criminal proceedings are put to an end, because this would allow the parties to translate their decision to live in peace in the reality. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to 3 2025:UHC:1284 be their desire to burry the hatchet for all times to come. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. 11. In view of above discussion, writ petition is allowed. FIR No. 478 of 2023 dated 19.08.2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, subject to payment of cost of `5,000/- by the petitioners, to be deposited within two weeks from today in Advocates Welfare Fund maintained by Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association. In the event, the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the stipulated time; the said amount shall be recoverable from petitioners, through District Collector of the concerned District, as arrears of land revenue. 12. Compromise application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 24.02.2025 Navin 4