[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/413/2026 on 13 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1703
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/413/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy A.G.
along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Shariq Khurshid proxy counsel for
Ms. Priya Mewari, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
09.10.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in Criminal
Case No.870 of 2025 under Sections 498-A,
323, 504 & 506 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 and applicant no.2 is
mother-in-law of respondent no.2; that, due
to some matrimonial discord, the
respondent no.2 lodged a complaint under
Section 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 I.P.C. on
17.01.2024 against the applicants, 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 applicants
2026:UHC:1703
would submit that applicant and the
complainant/respondent no. 2 have now
amicably resolved their dispute and do not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
any further. In support thereof, a joint
compounding application, along with
affidavits of the applicants and the
complainant/respondent no.2, has been
filed stating that the complainant do not
wish to prosecute the applicant.
7. The applicants and respondent no.
2/complainant are present through Video
Conferencing and have been duly identified
by their respective counsel. Upon
interaction with the Court, the applicants
and respondent no. 2 have stated that they
are now living together happily. They would
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, are
present before this Court and have been
duly identified by their respective counsel.
Upon interaction, they have unequivocally
stated that they have amicably resolved
2026:UHC:1703
their differences and are now residing
together peacefully. A joint compounding
application, 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
2026:UHC:1703
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.
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 09.10.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun
in Criminal Case No.870 of 2025 under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., as
well as the entire criminal proceedings
arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
16. The present C-528 application is,
accordingly, allowed.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra J.)
MA
RANI 13.03.2026
Mamta DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329
b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.03.17 10:34:44
+05'30'
