Uttarakhand High Court
7 April vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 17 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2790
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 477 of 2025
17 April, 2025
Anjar
--Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Present C528 application has been filed by the
applicant along with the compounding application
(IA/1/2025) for quashing the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.1233 of 2020 (FIR No.192 of 2019), State
vs. Anjar, u/s 498A IPC, pending in the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District
Udham Singh Nagar on the basis of compromise entered
into between the parties.
3. The ground for seeking compounding of offence
is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise
wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is
thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the
parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived
at between the parties.
4. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offence under Section 498A
IPC sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.
2025:UHC:2790
5. Applicant (Anjar), respondent no.2-Smt. Husan
Jahan @ Bhuri and respondent no.3 (Rivama @ Rivana
Parveen) are present in the Court being duly identified by
their respective counsel.
6. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that applicant and respondent no.3 sorted out their
dispute amicably outside the court without any coercion or
undue pressure voluntarily with their own sweet will and
now the parties have no grievance against each other and
do not want to pursue the criminal proceedings. The
applicant-husband and respondent no.3-wife have now
separated after taking divorce and living separately
peacefully.
7. Since the parties have settled the dispute
amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal
case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this
criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to
ask the applicant to appear before the trial court as
accused to face the trial.
8. So far as compounding of non-compoundable
offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the
consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case of
B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another,
reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 while dealing with the
matrimonial matters has held as below: -
"If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice,
quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320
Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether
to exercise or not such a power."
9. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint,
and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
2025:UHC:2790
Procedure, 1973.
10. In the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has mandated that in matrimonial cases,
the settlement should have been encouraged. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is quoted here-in-below: -
"The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It
becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes."
11. Since the parties have reached to the terms of
the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there
would be a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this
case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair
or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation
of the criminal proceedings after settlement. Since the
answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court
finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the
matter.
12. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1233 of 2020, State vs.
Anjar, u/s 498A IPC, pending in the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District
Udham Singh Nagarare hereby quashed. FIR No.192 of
2019 and the charge-sheet also stand quashed accordingly.
13. Present criminal misc. application u/s 528
BNSS, 2023 thus stands allowed. Other pending
applications, stand disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
17.04.2025
AK
