Uttarakhand High Court
C528/189/2026 on 13 February, 2026
2026:UHC:905
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C528/189/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr Abhishek Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.
4. Present C-528 application has been preferred seeking quashing of the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 861 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C., as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the dispute in question emanates from a matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2. The marriage between applicant no.1 (wife) and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 17.11.2019 as per Muslim rites and rituals. Applicant nos.2 and 3 are the brothers-in-law and applicant no.4 is the father-in-law of respondent no.2. It is contended that due to matrimonial differences, certain altercations took place between the parties.
2026:UHC:905
6. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged alleging that on 09.10.2020, when the applicants visited the house of respondent no.2, they allegedly manhandled the brother of the informant. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C., upon which the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summoning order dated 02.08.2021.
7. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the dispute has now been amicably settled between the applicants and the private respondents. A joint compounding application supported by affidavits of both sides has been filed before this Court. It is stated therein that applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 have been living separately for a considerable period; respondent no.2 has issued notice of divorce to applicant no.1 in accordance with law; and a sum of ₹12,00,000/- has been paid to applicant no.1 towards full and final settlement and permanent alimony. It is further averred that the parties have agreed to withdraw all litigations pending against each other and that no grievance survives between them.
8. The applicants and private respondents are present through Video Conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. On specific query put by this Court, they unequivocally state that the dispute arose out of matrimonial discord, which now stands resolved; that the settlement has been entered into voluntarily without any 2026:UHC:905 coercion or undue influence; and that they have no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed.
9. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The offences alleged are under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C., which, though not all compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., arise out of a purely personal and matrimonial dispute without any element of public interest.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 has authoritatively held that in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court may quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the dispute is essentially of a private and personal nature and the parties have settled the matter, provided the offences do not have serious societal impact. Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down guiding principles for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, inter alia, that where the offences are predominantly of civil character arising out of matrimonial or family disputes, and the parties have resolved their differences, the High Court should lean in favour of quashing to secure the ends of justice. Further, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, it has been reiterated that criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes and family matters, which have been amicably 2026:UHC:905 settled, can be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, as the continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
11. In the present case, the allegations stem from matrimonial discord; the parties have amicably resolved their dispute; permanent alimony has been paid; and they are living separately with no subsisting claims against each other. There is no allegation of any heinous offence or offence affecting society at large, thus, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose
12. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is satisfied that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
13. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. Consequently, the present C-528 application stands allowed. The impugned cognizance/ summoning order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 861 of 2021, as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 13.02.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:905