3 July vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 673 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

3 July vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 3 July, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:5676
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
 Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 377 of 2022
                          03 July, 2025



Nishant Singh & others

                                                       --Applicants
                               Versus

State Of Uttarakhand & another


                                                     --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-
Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Ms. Gyanmati Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Present C482 application has been filed by the applicants along with the compounding application (IA/4/2025) for quashing the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.3226 of 2018, Rashmeet Kaur vs. Nishant Singh & others against applicant no.1 under Sections 323, 498-A & 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and against applicant nos.2 & 3 under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case as well as the order dated 06.01.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.50 of 2019 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh

2025:UHC:5676 Nagar on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

3. 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.

4. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to be compounded is non-compoundable.

5. On 24.06.2025, applicant no.1 (Nishant Singh- husband) and respondent no.2-Smt. Rashmeet Kaur (wife) were present before this Court, while applicant no.2-Nishan Singh and applicant no.3-Smt. Jagjeet Kaur, were present through V.C., who were duly identified by their respective counsel.

6. On 24.06.2025, this Court interacted with applicant no.1 and he stated before this Court that in April, 2024, the parties had got separated by a decree of divorce and the marriage between them has been dissolved, but the document of dissolution of marriage i.e. the judgment and order of the learned Family Court was not on record. Thus, this Court directed the learned counsel for the applicants to bring on record the said document by way of filing a supplementary affidavit.

7. Today, learned counsel for the applicants has supplied the judgment and order of the learned Family Court to the Court and the same is taken on record.

8. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1-Nishant Singh has been granted decree of divorce by Principal Judge, Family Court,

2025:UHC:5676 Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide its judgment and decree dated 14.03.2024 and the respondent no.2-wife has never challenged this judgment and the same has attained finality. Therefore, they have entered into compromise and the compounding application has been filed by the parties before this Court.

9. In the compounding application, it has been stated that the applicants and respondent no.2 have settled their dispute amicably and have no grievance against each other and respondent no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants in any manner.

10. 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.

11. 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."

12. 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 Procedure, 1973.

2025:UHC:5676

13. 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.

14. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/4/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.3226 of 2018, Rashmeet Kaur vs. Nishant Singh & others against applicant no.1 under Sections 323, 498-A & 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and against applicant nos.2 & 3 under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case as well as the order dated 06.01.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.50 of 2019 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed qua the applicants only. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto also stand quashed accordingly qua the applicants only.

15. Present criminal misc. application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. thus stands allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.07.2025 AK