IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 806 of 2010 Arun Gairola .……Applicant. Versus State and another …….….…..Respondent. Present: Mr. H.C. Bisht, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Date of Decision : 8.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. H.C. Bisht, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant challenging the Charge Sheet No. 8 of 2010 dated 29.1.2010 in Case Crime No. 53 of 2009 under Section 420, 406 I.P.C. P.S. Nehru Colony Dehradun, summoning order dated 17.7.2010 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3270 of 2010 State Vs. Arun Gairola under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First, Dehradun. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an agreement for sale was executed between the present applicant and the complainant / respondent no. 2. As per the agreement for sale, the applicant had agreed to sell his land to respondent no.2. This “agreement”, is admittedly not registered. All the same, the complaint further states that when it was found that the applicant has subsequently sold that land to a third person, in violation of the agreement, respondent no. 2 filed a criminal case under Section 420, 406 I.P.C., reference of which has already been made in the preceding paragraph. 4. Now a compromise has been reached between the parties and an application (CRMA No. 949 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 Cr.P.C. under which the powers of the compounding of offences lie with the court reads as follows:- 2 “ (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.” 6. Under Section 320 (2), the Court before whom the prosecution is pending has got powers to compound the offences. Presently the prosecution is pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun. Both these offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. are compoundable offence by the permission of the Court. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant 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. 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 as 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 Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun. 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, the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3270 of 2010 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