1. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate, for the applicants.

2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Mr. Vishwaketu Vaidya, Advocate, for the respondent.

4. The instant C482 application, the challenge given is to the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1009 of 2021, “State Vs. Sachin Gupta and others”, for trying the present applicants for the offences under sections 323, 504, 506 and 493 of IPC, as it was registered by the complainant/respondent no.2, on 18.02.2019, against the present applicants, and the named accused persons, therein. Based on which, the Chargesheet No.132 of 2019, dated 18.02.2019, has been submitted, on which the summoning order has been issued on 03.10.2019.

5. Ultimately, the parties have settled their dispute based upon the terms and conditions mentioned in the compounding application, which has been duly signed by all the parties. The applicant no.1 and the respondent no.2, are physically present before this Court, and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels.

6. As far as the applicant nos.2 and 3, are concerned, they are participating in the proceedings through video conferencing, who too had been duly identified by the counsel for the applicants. Apart from the offence under section 493 of IPC, the other offences are compoundable under section 320 of CrPC.

7. At the stage when the compounding application was being considered, the Government Advocate has raised an objection that the offences could not be compounded for the reason being that it entails a consideration of an offence under section 493 of IPC. So far as the objection taken by the Government Advocate for the offence under section 493 of IPC, is concerned, the brief facts are required to be considered, herein, is that, according to the FIR, the complainant admits the fact that she was already married, and having children from her late husband, and later on owing to the certain intimacy, which she gradually developed with the applicant no.1, she became closure, and under a false assurance of the marriage, they have voluntarily entered into a physical relationship, but later on certain dispute arose resulting into the registration of the FIR.

8. What is important is that from the contents of the FIR, the status of the complainant being a widow was a status, which already stood disclosed to the applicant no.1, and as such, according to the language used under section 493 of IPC, it will not be attracted in the instant case, for the reason being that for the commission of the offence under section 493 of IPC, it requires that “a woman, who is not lawfully married to him, means the accused is made to believe that she is lawfully married to him”. These, elements are not made out from the FIR itself, as such, the commission of the offence under section 493 of IPC, cannot be said to be established against the present applicant.

9. Apart from it, the parties to the proceedings are present in person, this Court has interacted with the victim, as well as, the applicant no.1, and the complainant/respondent no.2, has made a statement before this Court that owing to the terms of the settlement, which has been referred to in the Compounding Application, she doesn’t intends to prosecute the present applicants, any further, in order to avoid an embarrassment for either of the sides for the set of certain personal allegations, which finds reference in the FIR, and which was later on found to have been established in the Chargesheet No.132 of 2019, dated 18.02.2019.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, the compounding application would stand allowed, and as a consequence thereto, the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1009 of 2021, “State Vs. Sachin Gupta and others”, pending consideration before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, would hereby stand quashed.