Disposed¶28

Gaurav Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Mar 2025WPCRL/158/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gaurav Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Others; Writ Petition Criminal No.158 of 2025; High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital; Pankaj Purohit, J.; FIR quashing on basis of compromise; joint compounding application IA/1/2025 allowed; FIR No.462 of 2024 dated 15.09.2024; Sections 420 and 506 IPC compoundable offences; Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar; complainant Kamaldev Tiwari no objection; subsequent proceedings terminated; decided 04.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Compounding application (IA/1/2025) allowed; compromise between the parties accepted; FIR No.462 of 2024 dated 15.09.2024 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC quashed; all subsequent proceedings pursuant to the FIR to come to an end; criminal writ petition disposed of accordingly. ¶28

Gaurav Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.462 of 2024 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC should be quashed in view of the compromise reached between the parties and the joint compounding application.

¶20

Court's answer

The offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable (by the person cheated with the Court's permission) and the offence under Section 506 IPC is also compoundable.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Because both offences are compoundable, the Court had no hesitation to allow the compounding application.

¶23

Key takeaways

With the parties having settled the matter, only a remote possibility of conviction remained and continuation of the criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice, making it a fit case to permit compounding.ratio¶24
On acceptance of the compromise, FIR No.462 of 2024 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC is quashed and all subsequent proceedings pursuant to the FIR automatically come to an end.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (Pankaj Purohit, J.) disposed of a criminal writ petition challenging FIR No.462 of 2024 dated 15.09.2024 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. A joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) signed by petitioner Gaurav Singh and complainant-respondent No.4 Kamaldev Tiwari, supported by affidavits, recorded settlement of a dispute over return of money, with the entire money stated to have been returned; the complainant told the Court he had no objection. Holding that the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the Court's permission and Section 506 IPC is likewise compoundable, and that continuation of proceedings would serve no fair purpose, the Court allowed the compounding application, accepted the compromise, quashed the FIR, and brought all consequent proceedings to an end. Decided 04.03.2025.

¶1

2025:UHC:1477

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Writ Petition Criminal No.158 of 2025

Gaurav Singh

--Petitioner

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Others

¶8

--Respondents

¶9

Presence :-

¶10

Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶12

Ms. Gyanmati Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶13

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the First Information Report No.462 of 2024 dated 15.09.2024, under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, registered with Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶16

Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) signed by both the petitioner and the respondent no.4 has been filed, which is duly supported by separate affidavits of the parties.

¶17

In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that the parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. Both the parties stated that the dispute between the parties was with respect of return of

¶18

¶19

2025:UHC:1477

¶20

money paid by the respondent No.4-complainant to the petitioner. Now, the petitioner had returned the entire money to the respondent No.4-complainant, it is thus, prayed that the present first information report be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶21

Petitioner-Gaurav Singh and respondent no.4Kamaldev Tiwari are present before this Court being duly identified by their respective counsel.

¶22

The Court also had an interaction with the respondent no.4 (Kamaldev Tiwari), the complainant about the compromise, to which, he fairly conceded that he has no objection if compounding application is allowed.

¶23

Since, the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable at person cheated on the permission granted by the Court and offence under Section 506 IPC is also compoundable, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to allow the compounding application.

¶24

Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

¶25

Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report No. 462 of 2024 dated 15.09.2024, under

¶26

¶27

2025:UHC:1477 Sections 420 and 506 IPC, registered with Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end.

¶28

Present criminal writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.03.2025

¶30

¶31

Gaurav Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girendra Phogat Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shrimati Meena Vs State of Uttarakhand

Akshat Goel Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sangam Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepak Pal and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand