Uttarakhand High CourtSmt. Anjali Zindal & Anr. ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 6 November, 2023Author:Rakesh ThapliyalBench:Rakesh ThapliyalIN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND\n             AT NAINITAL\n                  HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI RAKESH THAPLIYAL\n                                      November 6, 2023\n                Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 274 of 2018\n\nSmt. Anjali Zindal & Anr.                                ............Applicants\n                                          Versus\nState of Uttarakhand & Anr.                          ..........Respondents.\n\nCounsel for the Applicants:                           Mr. Ramji Shrivastava\nCounsel for the State:                                Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms.\n                                                      Meenakshi Sharma, Brief Holder.\nCounsel for the private respondent:                   Mr. Pawan Mishra.\n\n\nUpon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following Order:\n\n1.      The instant compounding application being IA No. 1\nof 2023, has been moved for compounding of the\noffences punishable underSections 467and468IPC,\nPolice Station Rajpur, District Dehradun pending in the\ncourt of Judicial Magistrate, I Dehradun.\n\n\n2.      Applicants - Smt. Anjali Zindal and Smt. Madhu\nSingla are present in the Court and duly identified by\ntheir counsels and victim Smt. Asha Mitra (wife of the\ncomplainant), is also present in the Court and duly\nidentified by her counsel. This compounding application is\nsupported by the affidavits of the applicants and the\nvictim. Xerox copies of the Aadhar card signed by the\nparties themselves and attested by their respective learned\ncounsel are filed and kept on record.\n\n\n3.      The brief facts of the case are that, a first\ninformation report was lodged on 17.07.2009, by one\nAmitava Mitra-respondent no. 2 against six persons,\nwherein, after thorough investigation final report was\nfiled on 11.11.2009, against which protest petition was\nfiled. Subsequently, the final report was rejected and the\nprotest         petition        was      treated    as     a   complaint      and,\n                               2\n\n\nthereafter, after recording statements underSection 200and202Cr.P.C., the learned trial court by order dated\n21.07.2017, issued summons to Smt. Madhu Singla and\nSmt. Anjali Zindal for the offences punishable underSections 467and468IPC, and the two witnesses,\nnamely, Harjeet Chawla and Vijay Kumar Gupta, who\nwere the witnesses of the disputed lease deed, they were\nalso summoned underSection 120BIPC.\n\n4.   After taking cognizance on the complaint, and\nissuing   summons,      the       entire   proceedings    of\nCriminal Case No. 706 of 2013 along with summoning\norder are challenged in the instant petition by Smt. Anjali\nZindal and Smt. Madhu Singla. The co-ordinate Bench by\norder dated 17.02.2018 stayed the summoning order.\n\n\n5.   Respondent no. 2-the complainant Amitava Mitra\ndied on 27.09.2017, and, thereafter, wife of respondent\nno. 2, though, earlier, was not the respondent, moved\nthis compounding application, which is supported the\naffidavit of applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2 as well as\nwith the affidavit of wife of respondent no. 2, i.e., Smt.\nAsha Mitra.\n\n6.   Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the\napplicants submits that Smt. Asha Mitra, being wife of\nrespondent no. 2 is also a victim, and is competent to file\nan affidavit in support of the compounding application.\n\n\n7.   Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel appears for Smt.\nAsha Mitra, whose affidavit is also filed in support of the\ncompounding application.\n\n8.   It is contended in the compounding application,\nwhich is supported by the affidavits of the applicants as\n                                     3\n\n\nwell as wife of the complainant, that during pendency of\nthe present C482 application with the assistance of their\nwell wishers the parties have entered into compromise\nand settled their disputes amicably outside the Court and\nthe settlement/compromise               also reduced in writing on\n07.07.2023, with certain terms and conditions including\nwithdrawal of the civil and criminal litigation pending\nbefore    the      Revenue      Courts      including      the     present\nproceedings. It is further contended in the compounding\napplication that pursuant to said compromise dated\n07.07.2023, parties also filed joint application before the\nBoard of Revenue in Revision No. 171 of 2018-19, Asha\nMitra vs. Smt. Madhu Singla & Ors., arising from the\norder     dated     01.03.2019,         passed     by     the     Assistant\nCollector, Dehradun in Revenue Case No. 07 of2008-09,\nwhich, in fact, the proceedings under Section 229-B of\nthe UPZA&LR Act. A copy of compromise entered\nbetween the parties dated 07.07.2023 and application\nmoved before the Board of Revenue is enclosed as\nAnnexure 2 and Annexure 3 to this compounding\napplication.\n     It    is     further    contended       in    para      10    of   the\ncompounding          application     that     after     the       aforesaid\namicable         settlement/compromise,               wife        of    the\ncomplainant has also executed two registered sale deeds\ndated 07.07.2023,           in favour of Thakur Das Singla and\nSandeep         Zindal,     which   are     also   annexed         in   the\ncompounding application.\n\n9.   Learned counsel for the applicants as well as\nlearned counsel for the respondent submits that since\nboth the parties have entered with amicable settlement\nby way of compromise dated 07.07.2023, and pursuant\nthereto, two sale deeds have been executed and the\n                              4\n\n\ndispute is civil in nature, therefore, continuation of this\ncriminal proceeding is nothing but a futile exercise. It is\nfurther contended that since amicable settlement has\nbeen entered between the parties, therefore, there is no\nchance of conviction, if the proceeding is continued.\n\n10.   Only objection raised by Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned\nA.G.A. for the State is that the offences punishable underSection 467and468IPC are non-compoundable.\n\n\n11. The learned counsel for both the parties placed\nreliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the\nCase of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana &\nanr., (2003) 4 SCC 675 as well as in the case of Nikhil\nMerchant vs. C.B.I. (2008) 9 SCC 677.\n\n12. Both the counsel submits that in view of the\njudgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the\naforesaid cases, since the dispute between the parties\nare purely civil in nature, and both the parties have\nentered into compromise with amicable settlement, the\nproceedings pending before the court below can be\nquashed by allowing the compounding application.\n\n13. After hearing learned counsel for the applicants as\nwell as learned counsel for the victim and also the\nlearned State Counsel, this Court is of the view that this\ncompounding application is deserve to be allowed, since,\nboth the parties have entered into compromise.\n\n14. In view of the observation as above, the instant\ncompounding application is allowed. The proceedings of\nCriminal Case No. 706 of 2013, Amitava Mitra vs. Sri\nThakur Singla & Ors., for the offences punishable underSections 467and468IPC pending in the court of Judicial\n                            5\n\n\nMagistrate-I Dehradun are quashed. Accordingly, the\npresent petition preferred underSection 482Cr.P.C. is\ndisposed of.\n\n\n\n\n                                __________________\n                                RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.Parul