Uttarakhand High Court
C528/2278/2025 on 17 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1043
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/2278/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Ms. Azmeen Wason, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy A.G.
for the State.
3. Mr. Bhavesh Bhatt, learned counsel
for private respondents.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the impugned
charge-sheet as well as the
summoning/cognizance order dated
31.10.2025 passed by the learned Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun
in Criminal Case No. 7385 of 2025,
arising out of offences under Sections
323, 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, together
with the entire consequential criminal
proceedings, on the basis of compromise
entered into between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the dispute emanates
from matrimonial discord between the
applicant and respondent no.2
(husband). It is contended that the FIR
was lodged alleging harassment, cruelty
and demand of dowry against the
husband (respondent no.2), mother-in-
law (respondent no.3) and father-in-law
(respondent no.4). Pursuant to
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted charge-sheet and the learned
trial court took cognizance vide order
dated 31.10.2025.
6. It is further submitted that during
2026:UHC:1043
the pendency of proceedings, better
sense has prevailed upon the parties and
they have amicably resolved their
disputes. The applicant and respondent
no.2 have decided to resume
cohabitation and are living together as
husband and wife. In furtherance of the
settlement, they have withdrawn the
litigations initiated against each other. A
joint compounding application duly
supported by affidavits of both sides has
been filed before this Court stating that
the settlement is voluntary, without
coercion or undue influence.
7. The applicant and respondent nos.2
to 4, along with the minor child born out
of the wedlock, appeared through Video
Conferencing and were duly identified by
their respective counsel. Upon
interaction, this Court is satisfied that
the compromise has been entered into of
their own free will. They have
categorically stated that they are
presently residing together and are
peacefully discharging their matrimonial
obligations. They jointly pray that the
criminal proceedings be brought to an
end in view of the amicable settlement.
8. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on
record.
9. The dispute in question is
essentially matrimonial in nature. The
offences alleged under Sections 323,
498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, though non-
compoundable, arise out of personal
discord between husband and wife and
do not involve any overriding public
interest or heinous crime against society
at large.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S.
2026:UHC:1043
Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and
Another (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that
the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can
quash criminal proceedings arising out of
matrimonial disputes even if the offences
are non-compoundable, in order to
secure the ends of justice. In Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab and Another
(2010) 15 SCC 118, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court authoritatively held that criminal
proceedings involving offences which are
predominantly of a civil or personal
nature may be quashed on the basis of
compromise, provided the offences do not
fall within the category of heinous and
serious crimes having grave societal
impact.
11. Further, in Narinder Singh and
Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another
(2014) 6 466, broad principles were laid
down guiding the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction for quashing on the basis of
compromise, emphasizing that where the
dispute is private and the victim has
settled the matter, continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of
process of court.
12. Recently, in Parbatbhai Aahir and
Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
(2017) 9 641, the Hon’ble Apex Court
reiterated that in cases predominantly
arising out of matrimonial discord, the
High Court may quash proceedings if the
compromise is genuine and the
possibility of conviction is remote in view
of settlement.
13. Applying the aforesaid settled
principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the dispute is
purely matrimonial and personal in
nature. The parties have voluntarily
2026:UHC:1043
resolved their differences and resumed
cohabitation, the compromise appears
genuine and is supported by affidavits
and no larger public interest would be
adversely affected by quashing the
proceedings; and continuation of
criminal proceedings would be
counterproductive and would disturb the
restored matrimonial harmony.
14. Accordingly, the present C-528
application is allowed. The impugned
charge-sheet, summoning/cognizance
order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the
learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
1st, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.
7385 of 2025, arising out of offences
under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act as well as the entire proceedings of
the aforesaid criminal case, are hereby
quashed.
15. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
[
(Alok Mahra, J.)
17.02.2026
Mamta
