No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C528 No. 1147 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Pawar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3/complainant. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with a prayer to set-aside/quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 14.07.2020, subsequent impugned order dated 24.08.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2284 of 2020, State Vs. Dinesh Thakur, under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, pending in the court of learned 3rd ACJM, District Dehradun, 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 virtually 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. 3 has submitted that FIR was lodged due to some misunderstanding and now they have sorted out the differences. It is further submitted by respondent no. 2 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. 2284 of 2020, State Vs. Dinesh Thakur, under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, pending in the court of learned 3rd ACJM, District Dehradun 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 Mahra J.) 08.06.2026 Ujjwal