IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 371 of 2007 1. Smt. Vandana Ahuja W/o Sri Suresh Ahuja R/o E –300, Greater Kailash Part –II, New Delhi –48. 2. Amit Seth S/o late Sri Chander Prakash Seth R/o 193, Chander Villa, Sindhu Nagar, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Ashok Khurana S/o Sri Barkat Ram R/o B –129, Pandav Nagar, Delhi As per F.I.R. R/o Madhav Nikunj Rehad, Police Station Tehsil Bhawali, District Nainital. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, with Mr. Suhail Ahmad Siddiqui, Mr. Amir Malik and Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocates, present for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Mr. M.S. Pal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Tarun Takuli and Mr. Mukul Dangi, Advocates, present for the complainant (respondent No. 2) Ashok Khurana. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. The petitioners Mrs. Vandana Ahuja and Mr. Amit Seth are present in person before this court, identified by their counsel. Mr. Ashok Khurana (complainant) is also present in person before this court, identified by his counsel. 2 2) This is Compounding Application No. 173 of 2011, moved by respondent No. 2, supported by affidavit, stating that the petitioners and the complainant (respondent No. 2) have already entered into compromise, and the respondent No. 2 (complainant) does not want to prosecute the petitioners. 3) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4) The petitioners Mrs. Vandana Ahuja and Amit Seth have filed Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 371 of 2007, in which they have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 660 of 2007 (old No. 1975 of 2006), State Vs. Suresh Ahuja and others, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. The said case pertains to offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 506 of I.P.C. 5) Petitioners, namely Vandana Ahuja and Amit Seth, and the complainant / respondent No. 2 Ashok Khurana verified the fact that the parties have entered into compromise. In view of principle of law laid down in Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, in the above circumstances, keeping in mind the nature of the offence relating to the property dispute, the petition under Section 482 of 3 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deserves to be allowed. 6) The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 660 of 2007 (old No. 1975 of 2006), State Vs. Suresh Ahuja and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 506 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, are hereby quashed so far as the same relate to petitioners Mrs. Vandana Ahuja and Amit Seth. (Compounding Application No. 173 of 2011 and Stay Vacation Application No. 1054 of 2009 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. February 28, 2011. H. Negi 4