[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1263/2023 on 8 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2545
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482/1263/2023
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel
for the applicants.
2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. along with
Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder
for the State.
3. Mr. Parth Tamta, learned counsel for
respondent no.2/complainant.
4. Present C-482 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the impugned
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order
dated 24.03.2023 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in
Criminal Case No.5392 of 2023, along with
the entire proceedings of the said criminal
case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the dispute in question
emanates from matrimonial discord
between applicant no.1 (husband) and
respondent no.2 (wife). Applicant nos.2 and
3 are father-in-law and brother-in-law of
respondent no.2. It is contended that due to
certain matrimonial differences, respondent
no.2 lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act; that, Investigating
Officer after completion of investigation has
submitted chargesheet, upon which,
learned trial court has taken cognizance.
6. It is further submitted that with the
intervention of respectable persons and
2026:UHC:2545
family members, the parties have amicably
resolved all their disputes. They have
decided to dissolve their marriage by
mutual consent and have filed petition
under Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code,
Uttarakhand.
7. The applicants and respondent no.2
are present before the Court through Video
Conferencing and have been duly identified
by their respective counsel. On being
interacted with, respondent no.2 has
categorically stated that the compromise
has been entered into voluntarily, without
any coercion or undue influence; that, she
has no objection if the criminal proceedings
in question are quashed.
8. 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 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Though certain offences are non-
compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.,
the dispute admittedly arises out of a
matrimonial relationship and is personal in
nature, without any element of public
interest or societal impact.
9. The legal position with regard to
quashing of criminal proceedings on the
basis of compromise is no longer res
integra. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively
held that the High Court, in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
can quash criminal proceedings even in
respect of non-compoundable offences,
where the dispute is essentially private and
2026:UHC:2545
personal in nature and the parties have
amicably settled the matter, provided that
the offences do not have serious impact on
society.
10. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down broad
guidelines for quashing on the basis of
compromise and observed that criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly
those arising out of matrimonial or family
disputes, should be quashed when the
parties have resolved their entire dispute,
so as to secure the ends of justice.
11. Further, in State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Laxmi Narayan, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reiterated that criminal proceedings
arising out of matrimonial disputes and
family matters, which have been amicably
settled, can be quashed in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction, unless the offences
are heinous and of serious mental
depravity. More recently, in Parbatbhai
Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court summarized the principles
governing exercise of power under Section
482 Cr.P.C., holding that the High Court
must evaluate whether continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of law and whether quashing would
secure the ends of justice.
12. In the present case, the allegations
stem purely from matrimonial discord
between the husband and wife. The parties
have amicably settled their dispute; the first
motion for mutual divorce has been filed;
substantial part of the settled amount has
already been paid; and respondent no.2 has
2026:UHC:2545
unequivocally stated that she has no
objection to quashing of the proceedings.
There is no allegation of any heinous
offence, nor is there any element affecting
society at large. Continuation of criminal
proceedings, in such circumstances, would
serve no fruitful purpose.
13. 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, the compounding
application is allowed. Consequently, the
present C-482 application stands allowed.
The impugned chargesheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
24.03.2023 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal
Case No.5392 of 2023 as well as the entire
criminal proceedings are hereby quashed
qua the applicants in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
MA
08.04.2026
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
Mamta ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b
, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.04.09 11:58:52
+05'30'
