Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1469/2025 on 11 February, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/1469/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Ms. Ketiki Chhaya, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Present C-528 application has been preferred seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 34 of 2021, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, arising out of F.I.R. No. 0279 dated 20.07.2019, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute in question emanates from matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 (husband) and respondent no.3 (wife). Applicant nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in- law, respectively, and applicant no.4 is the sister-in-law of respondent no.3. The marriage between applicant no.1 and respondent no.3 was solemnized on 07.11.2016 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Owing to certain matrimonial differences, respondent no.3 lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. alleging harassment and demand of dowry. Upon investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge- sheet and the court below took cognizance, registering Criminal Case No. 37 of 2021.
5. Learned counsel would further submit that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes. A joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, being Original Case No. 144 of 2022, was filed before the Family Court, Vikasnagar. The Family Court, vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2022, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent. The said decree specifically records that applicant no.1 has paid a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to respondent no.3 towards full and final settlement of permanent alimony and all claims. It is further recorded that both parties have agreed not to raise any claim against each other in future.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that though notices were issued to respondent no.3, none has put in appearance; that, the compromise and decree of divorce by mutual consent remain undisputed.
7. Learned State Counsel opposes the application; however, he does not dispute the factum of settlement between the parties nor the decree of divorce passed by the competent Family Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It is evident that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature and arose out of personal differences between the husband and wife. The offences alleged under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stem from the matrimonial relationship and do not involve any element of public interest or heinous crime affecting society at large. The marriage between the parties already stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The terms of settlement have been acted upon and the amount towards permanent alimony has been paid. Thus, the main issue between the parties does not exist anymore.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, held that in matrimonial disputes, where parties have settled the matter amicably, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice. Further, in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that criminal proceedings involving offences predominantly of civil character, particularly those arising out of matrimonial disputes, may be quashed when the parties have settled the matter and continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
11. In Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise and held that where the dispute is personal in nature and the parties have resolved their differences, continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile. Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, broad principles were reiterated governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the High Court must secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
12. In the present case, the dispute being matrimonial and private in nature, the marriage itself having been dissolved by mutual consent, and the settlement having been fully acted upon, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
13. Accordingly, the present C-528 application is allowed.
14. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 34 of 2021, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, arising out of F.I.R. No. 0279 dated 20.07.2019, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.
15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra J.) 11.02.2026 Mamta