Uttarakhand High Court
9 November vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 19 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:10262
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 2009 of 2025
19 November, 2025
Ayushi Singhal and Ors
--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
With
Criminal Misc Application No. 2013 of 2025
Ayushi Singhal and another
--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
Criminal Misc Application No. 2029 of 2025
Deepak Agarwal and others
--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
Criminal Misc Application No. 2031 of 2025
Deepak Agarwal
--Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the private respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
1. These four C528 applications have been filed
by the applicants, who are close relatives, for quashing
the different proceedings pending before various courts
on the basis of a compromise entered into between the
2025:UHC:10262
parties. Mr. Deepak Agarwal (husband) and Ms. Ayushi
Singhal (wife) entered into matrimony on 30.04.2016.
Due to various reasons, the relationship between the
husband and wife deteriorated, resulting in the filing of
several cases against each other. The cases that have
been registered and are presently pending between the
parties are as follows:
(i) In C528 No.2009 of 2025, applicants have
prayed to quash the FIR No.63 of 2020 dated
01.02.2020; charge-sheet No.01 of 2021 dated
10.01.2021; cognizance/summoning order
dated 02.03.2021 as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.2152 of 2021
(New No.736 of 2024) (CIS No.1539 of 2021),
State vs. Ayushi & others, under Sections 341,
147, 323 & 504 IPC, pending in the court of
learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
(ii) In C528 No.2013 of 2025, applicants have
prayed to quash the FIR No.229 of 2023 dated
09.06.2023; charge-sheet No.01 of 2024 dated
23.02.2024; cognizance/summoning order
dated 14.11.2024 as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.3853 of 2024,
State vs. Ayushi & another, under Sections
323, 324 & 327 IPC, pending in the court of
learned 1st Judicial Magistrate, District
Haridwar.
(iii) In C528 No.2029 of 2025, applicants have
prayed to quash the FIR No.61 of 2020;
charge-sheet dated 12.12.2020; summoning
order dated 17.05.2021 as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.2951 of 2021,
2025:UHC:10262
State vs. Deepak & others, under Sections 323,
324, 504 & 506 IPC, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar,
District Haridwar.
(iv) In C528 No.2031 of 2025, applicant has
prayed to quash the FIR No.255 of 2020;
charge-sheet dated 31.12.2022; summoning
order dated 28.03.2023 as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.5398 of 2023,
State vs. Deepak & others, under Sections 323,
325, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar,
District Haridwar.
2. Good sense prevailed between the husband
and wife, and they decided to separate amicably by filing
a petition for mutual divorce. Consequently, a mutual
divorce petition was filed before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Haridwar, which has been registered as
Petition No. 649 of 2025, filed on 19.09.2025. It was
agreed between the husband and wife that the husband
would pay an amount of Rs. 29 lakhs to the wife, Ayushi
Singhal, as permanent alimony towards the full and final
settlement of the dispute, which was accepted by her.
Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 14.5 lakhs has already
been deposited by the husband, Deepak Agarwal, before
the Family Judge, Haridwar, through a bank draft, and
this fact has not been disputed by the wife, Ayushi
Singhal.
3. It was further agreed that the remaining
amount, i.e., Rs. 14.5 lakhs, would be paid to the wife,
Ayushi Singhal, on the date of the second motion by
2025:UHC:10262
depositing the same before the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Haridwar.
4. Since this arrangement for peaceful and
amicable settlement has been arrived at between the
husband and wife, they have decided to withdraw all the
proceedings initiated against each other and pending
before different forums, as mentioned in paragraph 1 of
this judgment. Therefore, the same may be quashed in
terms of the compromise arrived at between them.
5. Ms. Ayushi Singhal-wife, her brother Mr.
Rajendra Kumar Singhal, her mother Smt. Alka, Atul Garg
are present in the Court while Mr. Shantanu @ Sushant
Aggarwal her brother, Mr. Pankaj Verma-Family Friend are
present through V.C. Duly identified by their respective
Advocates. Mr. Deepak Agarwal- husband is also present
before this Court, duly identified by his Advocate Mr.
Parikshit Saini. Mr. Pankaj Goel is also present before this
Court duly identified by his respective Advocate. Mr.
Akshay Kumar Mittal, brother-in-law, Mr.Narottam Vikas,
brother-in-law are present in the court through V.C., duly
identified by their respective Advocate.
6. An interaction was held with Ms. Ayushi Singhal
(wife), and she admitted the terms and conditions agreed
upon between the parties in the settlement. She has no
objection if the litigations pending between the parties are
dropped in view of the aforesaid compromise.
7. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to
be compounded are non-compoundable.
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
2025:UHC:10262
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.
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. (New Section 359B of BNSS,
2023) does not limit or affect the powers under Section 528
of the BNSS, 2023.
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 applications
(IA/1/2025) filed in all these C528 applications are hereby
allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is
accepted. As a result, the entire proceedings of the criminal
case numbers mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment
are hereby quashed. Consequently, the FIR and charge-
2025:UHC:10262
sheet referred to in paragraph 1 of this judgment also stand
quashed.
13. Present criminal misc. applications thus stand
allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
19.11.2025
AK
