Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1045/2021 of DEEPAK RAJGURU ALIAS DEEPAK AHLUWALIA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 28 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1045 of 2021 With Compounding Application IA No.1 of 2025 Deepak Rajguru Alias Deepak Ahluwalia ......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner, through
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1045 of 2021 With Compounding Application IA No.1 of 2025
Deepak Rajguru Alias Deepak Ahluwalia ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner, through video conferencing. Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Arjun Arora, Advocate for the respondent no.2, through video conferencing.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the chargesheet/ summoning/cognizance order dated 29.01.2020, passed in Criminal Case No.18 of 2020, State Vs. Deepak Rajguru, under Sections 420, 465, 467 IPC, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal (“the case”) as well as the entire proceedings of the case, on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. A joint compounding application has been filed along with the affidavits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by respondent no.2, Bharat Bhushan Gupta, (“the informant”), according to which the petitioner had executed an agreement to sell in his favour and had received money also, but, subsequently, he did not execute the saledeed. In fact, the petitioner was not the owner of the property. It is this FIR in which, after investigation, chargesheet was submitted, based on which the summoning order has been passed, and the
2 proceedings of the case were instituted. Now, a joint compounding application has been filed by the petitioner as well as the informant, along with their affidavits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a civil transaction; there was some misconception between the parties, which has now been resolved, and the informant has received the entire money; now, the informant does not want to proceed with the case.
5. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.2, the informant, joined the proceedings of this Court through video conferencing, as identified by their respective counsel. They have stated that they have settled the dispute amicably.
6. The Court particularly asked the informant. He submits that he has received the entire money, which was given to the petitioner. Now, he does not want to proceed with the case.
7. Having considered the nature of offence and all the attending factors, this Court is of the view that it is a case, which may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The chargesheet/summoning/cognizance order dated 29.01.2020, as well as the entire proceedings of the case, is hereby quashed.
9. Compounding Application No. 01 of 2025 stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
28.11.2025
Ravi Bisht