SUDHA PATWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3992 of 2016 (New No. 410 of 2016), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 & 120B IPC, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

(2.) A compromise application being CRMA 1460 of 2017 has been filed with the prayer that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Respondent no. 2 (Ramanjit Kaur) is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate. She (complainant) says that she has no grievance left against the present applicant Ms. Sudha Patawal, although she is interested in contesting the case against other accused persons. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only Ms. Sudha Patwal is the applicant. According to the victim, she is not interested in prosecuting the applicant (Sudha Patwal), inasmuch as, the dispute has been settled amicably between her (Ramanjeet Kaur) and the petitioner Sudha Patwal, with the intervention of some elderly persons of the society. Ms. Sudha Patwal is even not named in the FIR. She is at loss to find out how Sudha Patwal has been charge-sheeted. Petitioner/applicant is also present in person duly identified by her counsel Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Senior Advocate.

(3.) Whereas offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 & 506 of IPC are compoundable within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the other offences are not. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is- whether the respondent no. 3 should be permitted to compound the offences alleged against the applicant Sudha Patwal or not?