IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Compounding Application No. 954 of 2009 IN Criminal Misc. Application No. 829 of 2007 Thampi Singh … Petitioner/ Applicant Vs State of Uttarakhand & another … Opposite Parties Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H.C. Pujari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 92 of 2007, State Vs Satpal Singh & others, under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi. 2. Heard Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.C. Pujari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1, Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 3. Both the parties at this stage have filed the application for seeking permission to compound the offences and to decide the present petition on the basis of compromise between the parties. A joint compromise petition has been filed along with the application stating therein that matter has been settled amicably between the parties and the parties are not intending to proceed with the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 92 of 2007, State Vs Satpal Singh & others, under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B of I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi. 2 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case Nikhil Merchant Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & another reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 858 has held that when in a case under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., both the parties have entered into compromise which was reduced into writing, and was filed in the civil suit. On the basis of this compromise, the suit was compromised and the decree was passed accordingly. Consequent, upon the compromise of the suit and having regard to the terms of the compromise petition filed before this Court, which indicates that now both the parties, do not want to proceed with the proceedings. Under these circumstances, there should not be any hurdle in quashing all the criminal proceedings, since, continuance of the same would be a futile exercise. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court accordingly, quashed the proceedings of criminal case. 6. In the instant case also the case against the petitioner is pending under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi and the dispute between the parties has been settled on the basis of the compromise arrived at between them. The compromise deed filed by the parties before this Court also indicates that now both the parties are not willing to proceed further in the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 92 of 2007, State Vs Satpal Singh & others, under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi. 7. I am, therefore, of the view that in the aforesaid circumstances, the continuance of the criminal proceedings 3 after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. The compromise deed shall form part of the decree. 8. Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 92 of 2007, State Vs Satpal Singh & others, under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi against the petitioner is hereby quashed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 09.09.2009 ASWAL