HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 938 of 2023 26 March, 2025 Vikramjeet Singh & others --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1-Vikramjeet Singh has died on 27.09.2024. Accordingly, criminal misc. application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and compounding application (IA No.1/2023) dismissed as infructuous qua the applicant no.1-Vikramjeet Singh. 3. Present C482 application has been filed by the applicants along with the compounding application (IA/1/2023) for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.380 of 2023 (FIR No.498 of 2021), State vs. Vikramjeet Singh & others, u/s 307, 323, 341, 504, 506 & 34 IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. 4. The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the 1 parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable. 6. Applicant no.2 (Amarjeet Singh Sidhu), applicant no.3 (Gurvinder Singh), applicant no.4 (Sandeep Singh), respondent no.2 (Kripal Singh) and respondent no.3 (Sukhdev Singh @ Babbi) are present in the Court being duly identified by their respective counsel. 7. In the compounding application, it has been stated that the parties are close relatives and due to intervention of elderly persons of the society, they entered into an amicable settlement outside the Court; agreed to live peacefully without any grievance against each other; also agreed not to press the criminal litigation launched against each other and withdraw the same. 8. It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicants that it is a no injury case. 9. Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to ask the applicants to appear before the trial court as accused to face the trial. 10. 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 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 2 upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” 11. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 12. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings after settlement. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter. 13. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2023) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.380 of 2023 (FIR No.498 of 2021), State vs. Vikramjeet Singh & others, u/s 307, 323, 341, 504, 506 & 34 IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed qua the applicant nos.2, 3 & 4. FIR No.498 of 2021 and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto also stand quashed. 14. Present criminal misc. application thus stands allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly. Pankaj Purohit, J.) 26.03.2025 AK 3