No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-528 No. 463 of 2026 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned D.A.G. for the State. 3. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Aakib Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with a prayer to set-aside the chargesheet, summoning/ cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1395 of 2015, State Vs. Ritesh Dwivedi and Others, under Section 420 of IPC, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Roorkee, District Haridwar, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the complainant wherein it was alleged that one Joy Joseph R/ o Roorkee, have induced the complainant that he would provide her job in the agricultural department, pursuant to which, she paid Rs. 5 Lakhs to Joy Joseph. Applicant-Juhi Sharma @ Priyanka Sharma was also made one of the accused in this case. It is alleged in the FIR that Juhi accompanied Joy Joseph alongwith some other persons to the house of the complainant where Joy Joseph introduced Juhi as a political leader having high connections. Besides this, there is no other allegation against the present applicant-Juhi Sharma @ Priyanka Sharma. 6. Now, parties have entered into an agreement and they have settled their grievances. They are present before this Court and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Respondent no. 2 has submitted that she does not want to proceed with the case. Parties have also filed their respective affidavits stating the facts of compromise between them. It is also informed by learned counsel for the applicant that even in the investigation, no role has been assigned to the present applicant. 7. Compounding application is also filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offence between the parties under 420 of IPC. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise. 9. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Following the aforesaid ratio, present compounding application is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the entire proceedings of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1395 of 2015, State Vs. Ritesh Dwivedi and Others, under Section 420 of IPC, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. FIR and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed. 13. The present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 19.03.2026 Ujjwal