Allowed

Upendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Aug 2021C482/187/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and accepted a joint compounding application with paternal authorization, holding that despite non-compoundability of certain sections, judicial discretion allows quashing upon genuine settlement.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 2078 of 2020 proceedings for Section 384 IPC and IT Act offences were quashed regarding the applicant; application disposed of.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			C-482 No. 187 of 2021 Hon’ble N.S. Dh an ik , J . Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. B.S. Rathaur, learned A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Pankaj Kapil, learned counsel for the second respondent. By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicant seeks to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2078 of 2020, “State v. Upendra Kumar” for the offence punishable under Section 384 IPC and under Section 66B, 66C, 67 of The Information Technology Act, 2000, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Along with the petition, a joint compounding application (IA No. 2 of 2021) has been filed. I n support of the compounding application, affidavits have been filed by Shri Tej Bahadur (applicant’s father who is doing parivi on behalf of the applicant as the applicant is in jail and he has authorized his father for the same) and by Smt. Renu Pandey (second respondent.) Applicant’s father and the second respondent, duly identified by their respective Counsel were present before the court on 25.02.2021 and they admitted that they have entered into compromise. Ithas beensubmitted that the

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

C-482 No. 187 of 2021
Hon’ble N.S. Dh an ik , J .
Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for
the applicant.
Mr. B.S. Rathaur, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
Mr. Pankaj Kapil, learned counsel for
the second respondent.
By way of present application, moved
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicant
seeks to quash the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 2078 of 2020, “State v.
Upendra
Kumar”
for
the
offence
punishable under Section 384 IPC and
under Section 66B, 66C, 67 of The
Information
Technology
Act,
2000,
pending in the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
Khatima,
District
Udham Singh Nagar.
Along
with
the
petition,
a
joint
compounding application (IA No. 2 of
2021) has been filed. I n support of the
compounding application, affidavits have
been filed by Shri Tej Bahadur (applicant’s
father who is doing parivi on behalf of the
applicant as the applicant is in jail and he
has authorized his father for the same)
and
by
Smt.
Renu
Pandey
(second
respondent.)
Applicant’s father and the second
respondent,
duly
identified
by
their
respective Counsel were present before
the
court
on
25.02.2021
and
they
admitted that they have entered into
compromise.
Ithas beensubmitted that the

applicant and the second respondent have settled their dispute amicably and there is
no grievance between them and they are ready to compound the offences. Learned State Counsel opposed the
compounding application on the ground that Section 384 IPC is non compoundable offence. In view of the above and considering
the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Nik h il
Mer ch an t v . C.B.I . & Or s, ( 2 0 0 8 ) 9
SCC 6 7 7 ; B.S. Josh i v. St at e of
Har y an a an d An r r epor t ed in ( 2 0 0 3 ) 4 SCC 6 75, and inGian Sin gh v s. St at e of Pu n j ab r epor t ed in 2 0 1 2 ( 1 0 ) SCC
3 0 3, the compounding application is allowed. Compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Consequently, the entire proceedings of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.
2078 of 2020, “State v. Upendra Kumar”
for the offence punishable under Section 384 IPC and under Section 66B, 66C, 67 of The Information Technology Act, 2000, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed,
so far it relates to the present applicant only. The C-482 application is, accordingly, disposed of.
( N.S. Dhan ik , J.) 02.08.2021 SB

applicant and the second respondent have
settled their dispute amicably and there is

no grievance between them and they are
ready to compound the offences.
Learned State Counsel opposed the

compounding application on the ground
that Section 384 IPC is non compoundable
offence.
In view of the above and considering

the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble

Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Nik h il

Mer ch an t v . C.B.I . & Or s, ( 2 0 0 8 ) 9

SCC
6 7 7 ;
B.S.
Josh i
v.
St at e
of

Har y an a an d An r r epor t ed in ( 2 0 0 3 ) 4
SCC 6 75, and inGian Sin gh v s. St at e of
Pu n j ab r epor t ed in 2 0 1 2 ( 1 0 ) SCC

3 0 3,
the
compounding
application
is
allowed. Compromise arrived at between
the parties is accepted.
Consequently, the entire proceedings
of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.

2078 of 2020, “State v. Upendra Kumar”

for the offence punishable under Section
384 IPC and under Section 66B, 66C, 67
of The Information Technology Act, 2000,
pending in the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
Khatima,
District

Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed,

so far it relates to the present applicant
only.
The C-482 application is, accordingly,
disposed of.

( N.S. Dhan ik , J.)
02.08.2021
SB

Upendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niyamul Haq Alilas Niyamul Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pradeep Kumar Rathore Vs State of Uttarakhand

Akshay Bansal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bhavesh Paladia Alias Bhairav Dutt Paladia Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Girish Vs State of Uttarakhand