JAMEEL AHMAD KHAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

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

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


UKHC010192492026
C528/2389/2026

Jameel Ahmad Khan
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mohd. Shafy and Mr. Vinay Bhatt,
Advocates for the applicants.
2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Abhishek Dutt, Advocate for
respondent no. 3.
4. The present criminal misc. application is
filed with a prayer to set-aside the
chargesheet, summoning/cognizance order as
well as the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 1085 of 2024, under Sections 420,
120-B, 504 and 506 of IPC, pending in the
nd
court of learned 2 Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.
Div.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
on the basis of compromise between the
parties.
5. As per the prosecution story, the relative
of the complainant had booked a plot in the
housing colony, which was developed by the
applicant no. 1. It is alleged in the complaint
that despite paying premium, possession of
the plot was not handed over to him.
6. Now, Compounding Application is filed in
the matter wherein it is prayed to compound

the offences between the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and have entered into a
compromise.
8. Applicant and Respondent no.3 are
present before this Court and are duly
identified by their respective counsel. Parties
have also filed their respective affidavits
stating the facts of compromise between them.
9. The Court interacted with the parties.
Upon interaction, it is submitted that
applicant no.1 has returned the entire
amount, which was paid by the relative of the
complainant to the applicant no.1 and as
such now complainant has amicably settled
his dispute with the applicants and does not
want to pursue with the criminal proceedings
against the applicants.
10. At this stage, learned State Counsel
raised a preliminary objection to the effect
that the offences sought to be compounded
are non-compoundable.
11. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of
Haryana reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page
675, has permitted compounding of non-
compoundable offences with the permission of
Court.
12. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
a catena of its judgments, has observed that
in cases where because of the compromise
arrived at between the parties, possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings as
continuation of the same would cause great
prejudice and injustice to the accused.
13. Following the aforesaid ratio, the present

compounding application is allowed. The
offences between the parties are permitted to
be compounded. As a result, the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1085 of
2024, under Sections 420, 120-B, 504 and
nd
506 of IPC, pending in the court of learned 2
Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed qua
the applicants.
14. Accordingly, the present criminal misc.
application stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.


(Alok Mahra J.)
29.10.2026
Ujjwal