IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 916 Of 2007 1. Ved Prakash Sharma S/o Late Shri Jagdish Sharma 2. Mukesh Kumar Gaur S/o Late Shri Jay Prakash Sharma 3. Veenu Gopal S/o Shri Ved Prakash Sharma 4. Smt Meena Devi w/o Shri Ved Prakash Sharma 5. Smt Kalpana w/o Shri Mukesh Gaur 6. Sachin Sharma S/o shri Ved Prakash Sharma All R/o Sharda Dham Ranipur Jhal, Haridwar Dist Haridwar. ………………..Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Shri S.K.,Dube R/o III F/1020 Vaishali Gaziyabad U.P ………….Opposite parties Alongwith CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 304 Of 2008 Sachin Sharma S/o Shri Ved Prakash Sharma R/o Sharda Dham Ranipur Jhal Haridwar, Dist Haridwar 2 …....... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……..Opposite party Shri S.K.Aggarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Swapnil Bisht, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri P.S.Bohara, Brief Holder, present for the State Shri Bhaskar Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Vipul Sharma, Advocate, present for respondent no.2 (complainant) Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. The petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6275 of 2007, State vs. Smt Meena and others relating to offences punishable under section 406, 420 and 307 I.P.C, Police Station Jwalapur, District Hardwar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, by moving a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C). (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3 (3) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 S.K.Dube (complainant) lodged First Information Report registered as crime no. 409 of 2007, at police station Jwalapur against the petitioners relating to offences punishable under section 406, 420 and 307 I.P.C., alleging that the petitioners have committed cheating with the petitioners in respect of property regarding which the agreement date 14.06.2006, was entered between the parties, and the property was not transferred even after receiving the amount of consideration. It is also alleged that two boys came with country made pistol and fired at the complainant who admittedly suffered no injury. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the dispute between parties is purely a civil dispute relating to property and the complainant has already entered into compromise with the petitioners. In this connection an application No 1119 of 2008 has been moved along with affidavit that the parties to be litigation have already entered into compromise and proceedings 4 be quashed. (5) Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 (complainant) admits that compromise has already been entered with the petitioners, and he does not want to prosecute them. In view of the Principle of law laid down in Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I (2008) 9SCC 677 where offence alleged is not compoundable but it is basically a civil dispute of property, and parties have entered into compromise, the proceedings can be quashed. (6) In the above circumstances, having heard learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. Proceedings of criminal case no 6275 of 2007 State vs. Smt Meena and others pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, are hereby quashed. As to the release of the property the petitioner Sachin Sharma may move an application before the court concerned. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C No. 304 of 5 2008, also stands disposed of. (Application No. 1119 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.23.11.2010 Nahid