IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 912 of 2006 Rajendra Dhingan and another .……Applicants. Versus State of Uttaranchal and another …….….…..Respondents. Present: Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Date of Decision : 20.8.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1, and Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. This Criminal Misc. Application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicants against the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Criminal Case No. 2332 of 2006 under Sections 323/504 IPC State Vs. Rajendra Dhingan and another pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. Now, a joint application (CRMA No. 914 of 2010) has been filed by the counsels for the applicants and respondent no. 2 in this case for compounding/composition of offences. The matter has been listed before this Court on the said application. In the affidavit it has been stated that the present proceedings arise basically from matrimonial discord regarding which a divorce petition was also filed by Sarita Singh i.e. the wife against the husband, namely, Lalit Kumar. Now, during the proceedings before the Family Court the parties have reached a settlement that they will settle their dispute amicably. 4. On these set of facts, the matter is heard and decided finally. 2 5. The powers of the court for composition of offence under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. are well defined. 6. Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “(2) The offences punishable under the section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the table 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.” 7. The Apex Court has defined the powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in matter relating to compounding of offence. In B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 it has been held that the Courts normally would not go beyond the powers vested in them under Section 320 and only such offence which have specifically been mentioned in Section 320 of Cr.P.C. can be compounded, yet in an appropriate case the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can set aside the proceedings. 8. The inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have also been well defined in a large number of decisions, such as in the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, and more recently in Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I and another 2008 (4) JCC 2311. In a given case, where the parties have compromised or where it is apparent that the proceedings itself are mala fide or the proceedings are no better than an abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court must exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to meet the ends of justice and must quash the proceedings, even in cases which are not compoundable. On these facts this Court has no doubt in its mind whatsoever that the criminal proceedings, which are presently pending are nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and in order to meet the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2332 of 2006 State Vs. Rajendra Dhingan and another under Sections 323/504 IPC pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed. 3 9. The instant C-482 application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 10. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 20.8.2010 Avneet