[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/636/2026 on 8 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2544
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/636/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Ankur Sharma, 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. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned
counsel for respondent no.2/complainant.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the impugned
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order
dated 07.02.2026 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Rishikesh, Dehradun in
Criminal Case No.64 of 2026, arising out of
offences under Sections 323, 498-A, 504
I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 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 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act; that, Investigating
Officer after completion of investigation has
submitted chargesheet, upon which,
2026:UHC:2544
learned trial court has taken cognizance.
6. It is further submitted that with the
intervention of respectable persons and
family members, the parties have amicably
resolved all their disputes. They have
decided to dissolve their marriage by
mutual consent and have filed the first
motion petition under Section 27 of the
Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, which is
pending consideration.
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 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
2026:UHC:2544
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
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
2026:UHC:2544
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
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-528 application stands allowed.
The impugned chargsheet, cognizance/
summoning order dated 07.02.2026 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate
Rishikesh, Dehradun in Criminal Case
No.64 of 2026, arising out of offences under
Sections 323, 498-A, 504 I.P.C. and Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 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.
MAM Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f
TA
3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6
7ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
(Alok Mahra, J.)
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca
RANI
bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266
90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
08.04.2026
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.04.09 11:57:30 +05'30'
Mamta
