IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 583/2006 Surendra Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 23, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. BD Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the complainant/respondent no. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 1.7.2006 passed in Criminal Case No. 903/2006 Anand Singh Kanwal v. Surendra Singh under Section 500 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the CJM, Nainital stating that they are neighbourers. Petitioner keeps enmity with him and his family. On 5.5.2006, the respondent no. 2 had organized Jagar Ceremony at his residence and had called many people in this ceremony. Petitioner created obstructions in the said ceremony and made obscene remarks towards the respondent no. 2 and his wife. The priests who had been called to perform the Jagar Ceremony had left it in the middle. Feeling an insult to his position and status in the society, the respondent no. 2 through his Advocate sent a notice to the petitioner asking him to seek written apology for the said incident but the petitioner though replied to the said notice but had not begged any forgiveness. Thereafter he filed the aforesaid complaint. Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 500 IPC is made out against the petitioner and accordingly summoned him vide order dated 1.7.2006. Parties have filed compounding application stating that they have entered into compromise and sought permission of this Court that their compromise may be accepted and compounding application may be allowed as they are parties relatives and now they are living peacefully and the matter has been settled amicably between them. Compounding application is duly supported by the affidavits of petitioner as well as the respondent no. 2 duly verified by their respective Counsel. Hence, compounding application is allowed and the compromise entered into by the parties is accepted. Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 1.7.2006 passed by the CJM, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 903 of 2006 Anand Singh Kanwal v. Surendra Singh under Section 500 IPC is hereby quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 26.7.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 23.7.2010 PRABODH 2