[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/312/2026 on 27 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1432
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/312/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned Deputy A.G.
along with Mr. Pradeep Lohan, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Ms. Manju Bahuguna, learned counsel
for respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
23.08.2021 passed by the learned 1st
Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District
Nainital in Criminal Case No. 4041 of 2021,
under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 I.P.C., as
well as the entire criminal proceedings
arising therefrom.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the present case arising
out of matrimonial discord; that, the
applicant and respondent no.2 are husband
and wife respectively; that, the respondent
no.2 lodged a complaint under Section 323,
498-A and 504 I.P.C. on 29.04.2021 at
Police Station Kaladhungi, District Nainital
against the applicant, on which, the
Investigating Officer after completion of
investigation has submitted charge sheet
against the applicant, on which, learned
trial court took cognizance.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that applicant and the
complainant/respondent no. 2 have now
amicably resolved their dispute and do not
2026:UHC:1432
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
any further. In support thereof, a joint
compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2026),
along with affidavits of the applicant and
the complainant/respondent no.2, has been
filed stating that the complainant do not
wish to prosecute the applicant.
7. The applicant and respondent no.
2/complainant are present in person and
have been duly identified by their respective
counsel. Upon interaction with the Court,
both the applicant and respondent no. 2
have stated that they are now living
together happily along with their two
children and are discharging their
matrimonial obligations peacefully. They
further submit that the dispute between
them has been amicably settled, and
respondent no. 2 does not wish to prosecute
the applicant any further.
8. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application, on the ground that the
allegations include an offence under Section
498-A I.P.C., which is non-compoundable in
nature. However, does not dispute the
factum of compromise between the parties
or the filing of the joint compounding
application.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
10. From the material brought on record,
it transpires that the dispute between the
applicant and respondent no. 2 has arisen
out of matrimonial discord. The parties,
who are husband and wife, are present
before this Court and have been duly
identified by their respective counsel. Upon
interaction, both have unequivocally stated
that they have amicably resolved their
differences and are now residing together
2026:UHC:1432
peacefully along with their two children. A
joint compounding application (IA No. 1 of
2026), supported by their respective
affidavits, has also been filed wherein
respondent no. 2 has categorically stated
that she does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the applicant.
11. Although the offence under Section
498-A I.P.C. is non-compoundable, it is well
settled that in matrimonial disputes, where
the parties have settled their differences
amicably and are living together peacefully,
the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may
quash the criminal proceedings to secure
the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 11. Gian Singh vs. State
of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466
has held that criminal proceedings arising
out of matrimonial disputes can be quashed
on the basis of compromise, even if the
offences are non-compoundable, provided
the Court is satisfied that the compromise
is genuine and the continuation of
proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
12. In the present case, this Court is
satisfied that the compromise between the
parties is voluntary, genuine and without
any coercion. The complainant herself does
not wish to prosecute the applicant any
further. The parties are living together
happily and continuation of the criminal
proceedings would only disturb their
restored matrimonial harmony.
13. In the present case, this Court is
satisfied that the compromise between the
parties is voluntary, genuine and without
any coercion. The complainant herself does
2026:UHC:1432
not wish to prosecute the applicant any
further. The parties are living together
happily and continuation of the criminal
proceedings would only disturb their
restored matrimonial harmony.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, as well as the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court finds
that it is a fit case to exercise inherent
powers to secure the ends of justice.
15. Accordingly, the compounding
application (IA No. 1 of 2026) is allowed.
The charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning
order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the
learned 1st Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani,
District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 4041
of 2021, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504
I.P.C., as well as the entire criminal
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed qua the applicant.
16. The present C-528 application stands
allowed accordingly.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra J.)
27.02.2026
Mamta
MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430
ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e6891
1ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.02.27 19:41:34 +05'30'
