C528/512/2026 on 25 March, 2026

                                                                  2026:UHC:2163
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               C-528 No.512 of 2026

                               Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Mr. Tijil Gangwar, proxy counsel for Mr. Harsh Taneja, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Rudrapur, District

of 2025, for the offences punishable under Section 80(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of F.I.R. No. 239 of 2024, presently pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.2, alleging therein that the marriage of the applicant with the daughter of respondent no.2 (since deceased) was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the applicant and his family members on 2026:UHC:2163 account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

6. It is further alleged that on 19.09.2024, the complainant received information through a phone call that his daughter had died and that her death had allegedly been caused due to consumption of poison. On the basis of the said allegations, the present F.I.R. was lodged and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant, upon which the learned trial court took cognizance and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that after committal of the case, the charges have already been framed and the trial has commenced. The father and the brother of the deceased have been examined before the trial court as PW-1 and PW-2, and in their statements they have not supported the prosecution case and have denied the allegations made in the F.I.R.

8. It is further submitted that the parties have now amicably settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. In this regard, a joint compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) duly supported by the affidavits of the applicant as well as respondent no.2 has been filed before this Court stating that the dispute has been resolved amicably and that the complainant does not intend to prosecute the applicant any further.

9. Learned counsel would also submit that the applicant is presently in judicial custody in connection with the present case and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the continuation of the 2026:UHC:2163 criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

10. The respondent no.2 is present in person before the Court and has been duly identified by his learned counsel. Upon interaction with the Court, respondent no.2 has categorically stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicant any further. He has further stated that he has no objection if the criminal proceedings against the applicant are quashed.

11. Learned State Counsel opposes the application on the ground that the allegations pertain to serious offences which are non-compoundable in nature. However, he does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties nor the filing of the joint compounding application supported by their affidavits.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. From the material placed before this Court, it transpires that the dispute between the parties arose out of a matrimonial discord. It is also evident that the material witnesses, namely the father and brother of the deceased, who are the informant and close relatives of the deceased, have already been examined before the trial court and they have not supported the prosecution version.

13. In their statements before the trial court, the said witnesses have not attributed any specific role to the applicant in connection with the alleged harassment or 2026:UHC:2163 cruelty for dowry, nor have they supported the prosecution case regarding the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased.

14. It is true that the offences alleged in the present case are non-compoundable in nature. However, it is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the Court is satisfied that the dispute is essentially of a private or personal nature and that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction where the dispute between the parties is overwhelmingly personal or matrimonial in nature and the parties have resolved their dispute amicably, provided that such exercise of power would secure the ends of justice. Similarly, in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise and held that the Court must consider whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile and would not serve the ends of justice.

16. Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 2026:UHC:2163 Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, having regard to the nature of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case.

17. In the present case, this Court finds that the informant himself has appeared before the Court and has unequivocally stated that he has settled the dispute with the applicant and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. Moreover, the principal prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial court and have not supported the prosecution case, thereby substantially weakening the substratum of the prosecution case.

18. In such circumstances, the possibility of the prosecution securing a conviction against the applicant appears to be remote and bleak, and therefore continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

19. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the dispute between the parties, the statements of the material witnesses recorded before the trial court, and the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

20. Accordingly, the compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) is allowed.

21. Consequently, the charge-sheet as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial 2026:UHC:2163 Magistrate 1st, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 80(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of F.I.R. No.239 of 2024, pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, along with the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the applicant.

22. The applicant is stated to be in judicial custody in connection with the present case. He shall be released forthwith as per law, if not required in any other case.

23. The present C-528 application is, accordingly, allowed.

24. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Alok Mahra J.) 25.03.2026 Mamta

MAMTA RANI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e43 0ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e689 11ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.03.31 10:34:04 +05'30'