[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
December vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 1 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:10668
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 2119 of 2025
01 December, 2025
Aakash Alias Mohit & others
--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ketan Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhala and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief
Holders for the State.
Mr. Ankit Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Present C528 application has been filed by the
applicants along with the joint compounding application
(IA/1/2025) for quashing the charge-sheet dated
31.10.2020; cognizance/summoning order dated
20.01.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No.888 of 2021, State vs. Aakash @ Mohit & others,
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani,
District Nainital on the basis of compromise entered into
between the parties.
2. The ground for seeking compounding of offences
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.
3. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
2025:UHC:10668
4. Applicant no.1-Aakash @ Mohit (husband) and
respondent no.2-Smt. Garima (wife) are present in the
Court, duly identified by their respective Advocates.
Applicant no.2-Om Prakash (father-in-law) and applicant
no.3-Suman Rani (mother-in-law) are present before the
Court through V.C., duly identified by their Advocate.
5. In the compounding application, it is stated that
applicant no. 1, Aakash @ Mohit, and respondent no. 2,
Smt. Garima, have filed a suit for divorce under Section 27
of the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024, before the
learned Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Haldwani,
District Nainital, which is registered as Divorce Suit No.
364 of 2025. It was decided between them that applicant
no. 1 (husband) shall pay a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs towards
full and final settlement to respondent no. 2 (wife). Out of
this amount, a cheque of Rs. 2,75,000/-, a cash amount of
Rs. 25,000/- was paid to the respondent no.2-wife and the
remaining amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was paid at the time of
the second motion.
6. Respondent no. 2, Smt. Garima, accepted that
she has already received Rs. 11 lakhs from applicant no. 1
as permanent alimony towards full and final settlement. It
was agreed that the parties would withdraw the criminal
proceedings initiated by each against the other, in
accordance with the compromise entered into between
them.
7. Upon interaction, the parties ratified the terms
and conditions of the settlement arrived at between them.
Respondent no. 2 admitted having received the agreed
amount. She also submitted that the second motion in the
mutual divorce petition has already been moved, and the
matter is now listed on 21.12.2025 for 'delivery of
judgment'.
2025:UHC:10668
8. 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 applicants to appear before the trial court as
accused to face the trial.
9. 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 and 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."
10. 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 582 of the BNSS, 2023. Further the
dispute sought to be resolve is a matrimonial dispute which
should be put to an end.
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
2025:UHC:10668
Criminal Case No.888 of 2021, State vs. Aakash @ Mohit
& others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the
court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haldwani, District Nainital are hereby quashed. FIR dated
01.09.2020 and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto
also stand quashed.
13. Present criminal misc. application thus stands
allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
01.12.2025
AK
