IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 904 of 2011 with Compounding Application No. 1188 of 2011 Ravi Kumar Singh Chauhan S/o Sri Ajay Kumar R/o Village Sahruva Police Station Majhilla District Hardoi , U.P. Presently posted as Field Officer State Bank of India, Branch Sissaya Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar ………………..Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Shri Ramashankar S/o Shri Dharmdas R/o village Yakubganj Police Station Baheri District Barielly U.P. …...............Opposite parties Shri Tumul K.Nailwal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder present for the State. Shri Deepak Bishst, Advocate, respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 576 of 2011, State vs. Chotte Lal and another relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted before this court that respondent no.2 has entered into compromise with the petitioner and he does not want to prosecute him. Compromise is filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed with the petition. The Compounding Application No. 1188 of 2011 is also moved with the petition. The respondent no.2 Ramashankar (complainant) is present in person in the court, identified by his counsel. He (complainant) verified that fact the since the loan amount has already been deposited in the bank, as such, he does not want to prosecute Ravi Kumar Singh Chauhan, Field Officer of State Bank of India, who is the petitioner in this petition. (4) In view of principle of law laid down in Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and 3 Another (2008) 9SCC Page 677, for the reasons as discussed above, the petition deserves to be allowed. (5) Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 576 of 2011, State vs. Chotte Lal and another relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 120B I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima., are here by quashed, as against the petitioner Ravi Kumar Singh Chauhan. It is clarified that the trial court may proceed further as against co accused Chotte Lal. (Compounding Application No. 1188 of 2011 stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.14.10.2011 N.P