No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C528 No. 1074 of 2026 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Addl. Advocate General alongwith Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Kundan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with the prayer to set-aside and quash the chargesheet, cognizance/ summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 950 of 2025, State Vs. Mukesh Rawat, under Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 5. Now, Compounding Application is filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offences between the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise. 7. 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. 8. The Court interacted with the parties. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 submits that she has amicably settled her dispute with the applicant and she does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 9. At this stage, 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, 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. 950 of 2025, State Vs. Mukesh Rawat, under Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital are hereby quashed qua the applicant. FIR and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed. 13. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 21.05.2026 Ujjwal