IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 812 of 2010 Gurmeet Kaur and another. .……Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …….….…..Respondents. Present: Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Date of Decision : 8.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 and Mohd. Azim, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging the order dated 5.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 985 of 2009 State Vs. Smt. Gurmit Kaur and another under Section 420 & 181 of IPC pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against the applicants, which was registered as Case Crime No. 379 of 2009 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. at Police Station Chauki ITI, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the present applicants under Section 420 and 181 I.P.C. After submission of the charge sheet, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar issued order dated 5.6.2009, whereby the present applicants have been summoned under Section 420 and 181 I.P.C. 4. Now a compromise has been reached between the parties and an application (CRMA No. 961 of 2010) has been filed by the applicant for compounding of the offences. This though was only reached after the criminal proceeding had already been set to motion. 5. Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “(2) The offences punishable under the section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the table 2 next following may, with the permission of the court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table.” 6. Under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C., the Court before whom the prosecution is pending has got powers to compound the offences. Presently the prosecution is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar. The offence under Sections 420 as well as 181 I.P.C. is compoundable by the permission of the Court. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants has prayed that under the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. orders for composition of offence be made. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants has cited two cases in support of his contention, which are B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677. 9. In both the aforesaid cases, the matter which are to be decided by the Court is whether under the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the High Court can pass an order for compounding of offence even though such an offence is specifically mentioned under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Even if the offence is not compoundable can in the interest of justice an order be passed. 10. All the same relying upon the earlier decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi’s case (supra) , in Nikhil Merchant’s case (supra) it has been held that though even the High Court cannot go beyond what has been laid down under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. inasmuch it should not pass orders for compounding the offences, which are not specifically mentioned under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. yet these statutory limitations can be overcome under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The difference though would be that in such cases the High Court will not order for compounding of an offence but the High Court can order for quashing of the proceedings. 3 11. Moreover, an application for compounding of offence is filed in the Court where the prosecution is pending. Admittedly, the prosecution is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 12. However, in case the matter is relegated to the lower Court for compounding of offence, the parties will have to face unnecessary hardship, inasmuch, they may have to surrender and may have to apply for bail. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of Nikhil Merchant’s case (supra), the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 985 of 2009 are hereby set aside. 13. The instant C-482 application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 14. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 8.9.2010 Rathour