Uttarakhand High Court
C482/734/2018 on 13 May, 2026
2022:UHC:14728
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482/734/2018
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, learned
counsel for respondent no.2.
4. Present C-482 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet,
summoning/cognizance order dated
11.01.2018 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in
Criminal Case No. 628 of 2018 for the
offences punishable under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.,
pending before the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, as well
as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
criminal case qua the present applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that respondent no.2 lodged
the F.I.R. alleging therein that one
Pradeep Sharma, by impersonating
certain persons namely Musu and Ismaeil,
had purchased a piece of land
fraudulently. He would further submit
that the present applicant has not been
named in the F.I.R. and during
investigation, solely on the basis of the
statement of co-accused Pradeep Sharma,
the applicant has been implicated in the
2022:UHC:14728
instant case.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that except the
statement of co-accused Pradeep Sharma,
there is no independent or cogent
evidence available on record against the
present applicant. He would submit that
even as per the statement of Pradeep
Sharma, the allegation against the
applicant is only to the extent that the
original witness of the sale deed did not
appear and some other person was
allegedly made to sign as witness in the
sale deed. It is submitted that no specific
role has been assigned to the present
applicant in the alleged commission of
offence and the applicant is neither
beneficiary of the transaction nor party to
the alleged sale deed.
7. He would further submit that the
dispute between the parties has
subsequently been amicably resolved with
the intervention of respectable persons of
the society and respondent no.2 does not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
against the present applicant. In this
regard, a joint compromise application
being I.A. No. 3367 of 2024, duly
supported by affidavits of the applicant as
well as respondent, has been filed before
this Court stating therein that the
compromise has been entered into
voluntarily, without any coercion,
pressure or undue influence.
8. Learned State counsel would oppose
the application on the ground that the
offences alleged against the applicant are
2022:UHC:14728
serious and non-compoundable in nature.
However, he does not dispute the factum
of compromise entered into between the
parties.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
10. It is well settled that the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of law and to
secure the ends of justice. Although the
offences alleged are non-compoundable in
nature, the High Court, in appropriate
cases, may quash the criminal
proceedings where the dispute is
predominantly private in nature and the
possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak.
11. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
criminal proceedings involving non-
compoundable offences can be quashed in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. where continuance of
such proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of Court and where the
dispute is essentially private and personal
in nature. Similarly, in Narinder Singh v.
State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Apex Court
laid down guidelines for exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while
considering compromise between the
parties. Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir v.
State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reiterated that the inherent powers
of the High Court are to be exercised to
2022:UHC:14728
secure the ends of justice and to prevent
abuse of the process of Court.
12. In the present case, this Court finds
that the applicant was not named in the
F.I.R. and has been implicated
subsequently during investigation mainly
on the basis of the statement of co-
accused person. No specific overt act has
been assigned to the present applicant in
the charge-sheet. Moreover, the parties
have amicably settled their dispute and
respondent no.2 does not wish to
prosecute the matter any further.
Considering the nature of allegations, the
material available on record and the
compromise entered into between the
parties, this Court is of the view that the
possibility of conviction of the applicant is
remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal proceedings would amount to
abuse of the process of Court.
13. Accordingly, the present C-482
application deserves to be allowed.
Consequently, the charge-sheet,
summoning/cognizance order dated
11.01.2018 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in
Criminal Case No. 628 of 2018, as well as
the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
criminal case, are hereby quashed qua the
present applicant.
14. The present C-482 application is
accordingly allowed.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
13.05.2026
Mamta
2022:UHC:14728
