IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Misc. Application No. 504 of 2011 Compromise Application No. 509 of 2011 In CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 989 of 2009 Roop Singh S.o Shri Mastram R/o Village Dugri, Tehsil Malerkotla Dist. Sangrur(State of Punjab) address mentioned in impugned F.I.R. R/o Guruji ka Ashram, Villa-E Empire Estate, Sultanpur Mehrauli New Delhi ………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Uttarakhand through Home Secretary Dehradun 2. Shri Madan Mohan Chaudhary S/o Balkishan Das R/o Inder Kutir, Shravana Nagar, Niranjan Akhara, Hardwar Power of Attorney holder of Km. Kavita Chaudhary D/o Shri Madan Mohan Chaudhary …………. Respondents Shri S.K.Aggarwal, Senoir Advocate, assisted by Shri Swapnil Bisht, Advocate, present for the petitioner Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Ms.Indu Sharma, Advocate, present for the complainant(respondent no.2) 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Misc. Application No. 504 of 2011 moved on behalf of the respondent no.2 seeking the permission to file Power of Attorney of respondent no.2 in favour of his daughter Ms. Kavita Chaudhary. (2) The Misc. Application No. 504 of 2011, is allowed. (3) Heard, on the petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner who is accused in Criminal Case No. 3851 of 2009, State vs. Mastram and others, relating to offences punishable under section 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C., pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that parties have entered into compromise, and the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner. (5) The Compromise Application No. 509 of 2011 has been moved in this petition praying that petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., may be allowed, as the parties have entered into compromise in the matter. 3 (6) In view of principle of law laid down in Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2008) 9SCC Page 677, and considering the nature of the offence which relates to the property, the Compromise Application No. 509 of 2011 deserves to be allowed. (7) The Compromise Application No. 509 of 2011 is allowed. (8) Consequently the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3851 of 2009, State vs. Mastram and others, relating to offences punishable under section 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C., pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, against the petitioner Roop Singh, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.20.05.2011 Nahid 4