IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 814 of 2011 with Compounding Application No. 1067 of 2011 Sandeep Khanna S/o Shri Deepak Khanna R/o C-280 Mata ka Mandir In front of Punjab National Bank Govind Puri, Ranipur More P.S.Jwalapur, District Hardwar ………………..petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Sri Raj Kumar S/o Sri Mangal Ram R/o Brahmpuri, in front of Gopal Mandir, P.S.Kotwali Jwalapur, District Hardwar …..............Opposite parties Shri B.M.Pingal, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Vivek Shukla, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Adhikari, A.G.A., present for the State. Shri Narendra Bali, Advocate, present for the respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8978 of 2010, (arisen out of crime no. 57 of 2008) State vs. Sandeep Khanna and others relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Hardwar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 (complainant) pray before this court that the said parties have entered into compromise. The dispute between the parties relates to the property bearing House No. 216 Avas Vikas Colony, Ranipur More, Hardwar, which was initially alloted in favour of Mangat Ram (father of the respondent no.2 Raj Kumar). After the death of Mangat Ram, Sandeep Khanna said to have claimed the ownership on 3 the basis of some “ Will”. Now, the property dispute has been settled between Raj Kumar and Sandeep Khanna, and Raj kumar does not want to prosecute Sandeep Khanna. A compounding Application No. 1067 of 2011 has been moved before this court supported by joint affidavits of Sandeep Khanna and Raj Kumar. Sandeep Khanna and Raj Kumar identified by their counsel, are present in court who verified the compromise. (4) In the above circumstances, in view of principle of law laid down in Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2008) 9SCC Page 677, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., deserves to be allowed. (5) Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8978 of 2010, (arisen out of crime no. 57 of 2008) State vs. Sandeep Khanna and others relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 4 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Hardwar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar. are hereby quashed, so far as the same relate to accused Sandeep Khanna. However, it is clarified that trial may proceed further as against the another accused Kanta Devi. ( Compounding Application No. 1067 of 2011 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.13.09.2011 N.P