[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/239/2026 on 11 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1562
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/239/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Mr. Faizan Ali, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been
preferred seeking quashing of chargesheet,
summoning/cognizance order dated
24.01.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.63
of 2024 under Section 313, 323, 504, 498-
A and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
pending in the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District
Haridwar as well as the entire proceedings
of the aforesaid criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the dispute in question
emanates from matrimonial discord
between applicant no.1 (father-in-law) and
respondent no.2 (mother-in-law) and
applicant no.3 (sister-in-law) of respondent
no.2. Owing to certain matrimonial
differences, respondent no.2 lodged the
aforesaid F.I.R. alleging harassment and
demand of dowry. Upon investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted charge-
sheet and the court below took cognizance,
registering Criminal Case No. 63 of 2024.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that during the
2026:UHC:1562
pendency of the criminal proceedings, the
parties have amicably resolved all their
disputes. He would further submit that the
parties are now ready to dissolve their
marriage by mutual consent. It is further
submitted that a compounding application
along with affidavits of the parties has
been filed stating therein that respondent
no.2 does not wish to prosecute the
applicant any further. Therefore, it is
prayed that the entire criminal
proceedings be quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the
parties.
7. The applicants and respondent no.2
are present through Video Conferencing.
On interaction, the applicants as well as
respondent no.2 would submit that they
have amicably been settled the dispute,
therefore, the entire criminal proceedings
be quashed in terms of the compromise.
8. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application; however, he does not dispute
the factum of settlement between the
parties.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
10. It is evident that the dispute between
the parties is purely matrimonial in nature
and arose out of personal differences
between the husband and wife. The
offences alleged under Sections 498-A,
313, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act stem from the
matrimonial relationship and do not
involve any element of public interest or
heinous crime affecting society at large.
2026:UHC:1562
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.
Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and
another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, held that in
matrimonial disputes, where parties have
settled the matter amicably, the High
Court, in exercise of its inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash
criminal proceedings to secure the ends of
justice. Further, in Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that criminal proceedings
involving offences predominantly of civil
character, particularly those arising out of
matrimonial disputes, may be quashed
when the parties have settled the matter
and continuation of proceedings would be
an abuse of the process of the Court.
12. In Narinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court laid down guidelines for
quashing of criminal proceedings on the
basis of compromise and held that where
the dispute is personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their differences,
continuation of criminal proceedings
would be futile. Similarly, in Parbatbhai
Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC
641, broad principles were reiterated
governing the exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 528 B.N.S.S., emphasizing
that the High Court must secure the ends
of justice and prevent abuse of the process
of the Court.
13. In the present case, the dispute being
matrimonial and private in nature, the
marriage itself having been dissolved by
mutual consent, and the settlement having
been fully acted upon, this Court is of the
2026:UHC:1562
considered opinion that continuation of
the criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose and would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court.
14. Accordingly, the compounding
application is allowed. Consequently, the
C-528 application is also allowed. The
charge-sheet, summoning/cognizance
order dated 24.01.2024 passed in Criminal
Case No. 63 of 2024, pending in the court
of the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar, as
well as the entire proceedings of the
aforesaid criminal case, are hereby
quashed qua the applicants.
15. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra J.)
11.03.2026
Mamta
MAMT
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3
e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67e
bbd642671329b,
A RANI
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabf
d54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a
191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.03.13 16:47:26 +05'30'
