Ravikant Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2024) In Criminal Misc Application No.907 of 2024

Ravikant Sharma

--Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. --Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------Presence:-Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned A.G.A assisted by Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Deepak Pandey, Advocate for the respondent no.3/complainant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

The present criminal misc. application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant seeking quashing of the charge-sheet no.05 of 2024 dated

09.03.2024 submitted by the Investigating Officer for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66 (C) and 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act in Criminal Case No.456 of 2024, 'State vs. Ravikant Sharma', in connection with F.I.R. No.0067 of 2023 dated 06.10.2023, P.S. Bhimtal, District Nainital.

2.

Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2024) has been filed on behalf of the applicant and respondent no.3/complainant. An affidavit has been filed in support of

the compounding application on behalf of respondent no.3/complainant, Chaitanya Kishore Sharma. In the affidavit, respondent no.3 has categorically stated that the entire dispute between the applicant and the respondent no.3/complainant has been settled and the respondent no.3/complainant does not wish to continue the litigation against the applicant as such the present criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.

3.

The Court interacted with the respondent no.3/complainant, who is present in person and identified by Mr. Deepak Pandey, Advocate, and he states that he has received the amount which was involved in the case and further states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the compounding application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings be quashed.

4.

The Court also interacted with the applicant, who is also present in person and duly identified by Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate and he too makes the similar statements like the respondent no.3.

5.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and interacting with the applicant and the respondent no.3, it is clear that the parties have resolved their disputes amicably, and the respondent no.3 does not wish to

prosecute the applicant any further and is desirous of putting a quietus to the matter. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to let the matter be put to rest.

6.

Learned State counsel raised an objection that the offence is against society and Sections 419, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC are non-compoundable offences, hence, the compounding application cannot be allowed.

7.

However, in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another", (2003) 4 SCC 675, "Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and another", (2008) 9 SCC 650 and "Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab", 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted the compounding of non-compoundable offence.

8.

Since the parties have already settled the matter amicably and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid cases, has permitted compounding in such matters, the compounding application deserves to be allowed.

9.

From the aforesaid, it is quite evident that the respondent no.3/complainant has received the amount, which is involved in this case from the applicant, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by letting the matter go

into trial.

¶10Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, has also made a submission that, in the matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to digital arrest and other matters, there is no adverse observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against permitting compounding in a matter like the present matter.

¶11In such view of the matter, the Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2024) is hereby allowed.

¶12As a consequence thereof, the charge-sheet no.05 of 2024 dated 09.03.2024 submitted by the Investigating Officer for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66 (C) and 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act in Criminal Case No.456 of 2024, 'State vs. Ravikant Sharma', in connection with F.I.R. No.0067 of 2023 dated 06.10.2023, P.S. Bhimtal, District Nainital as well as the entire proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

¶13The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, thus, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.)

13.08.2026 Akash