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. 370 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Medha Pande, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Ramji Srivastav, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 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. 1180 of 2026, State Vs. Mandeep Sandhu and Another, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC, pending in the court of learned ACJM III, Dehradun, District Dehradun, on the basis of compromise between the parties. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the applicants under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC. In the FIR, it was alleged that applicants, who wanted certain piece of land at Dehradun, entered into an agreement with the complainant and in lieu of it, they made payment to the applicants amounting to Rs. 3.25 Crores through RTGS and cheques, but, even after entering into an agreement, sale deed was not executed and the dispute arose. Consequently, the present FIR was lodged. 6. Now, parties have entered into an agreement and they have settled their grievances. They are present before this Court through video conferencing and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Parties have also filed their respective affidavits stating the facts of compromise between them. 7. Compounding application (IA/2/2026) is also filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offence between the parties under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants 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 Criminal Case No. 1180 of 2026, State Vs. Mandeep Sandhu and Another, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC, pending in the court of learned ACJM III, Dehradun, District Dehradun are hereby quashed qua the applicants. FIR and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed. 13. C-528 application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Alok Mahra J.) 12.03.2026 Ujjwal