Uttarakhand High Court
C528/189/2026 on 13 February, 2026
2026:UHC:905
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C528/189/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr Abhishek Joshi, learned counsel
for the applicants.
2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy
A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned
A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned
counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.
4. Present C-528 application has been
preferred seeking quashing of the impugned
cognizance/summoning order dated
02.08.2021 passed by the learned 1st
Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division)/Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, District Haridwar in Criminal
Case No. 861 of 2021, under Sections 323,
504, 506 and 452 I.P.C., as well as the
entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal
case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the dispute in question
emanates from a matrimonial discord
between applicant no.1 and respondent
no.2. The marriage between applicant no.1
(wife) and respondent no.2 was solemnized
on 17.11.2019 as per Muslim rites and
rituals. Applicant nos.2 and 3 are the
brothers-in-law and applicant no.4 is the
father-in-law of respondent no.2. It is
contended that due to matrimonial
differences, certain altercations took place
between the parties.
2026:UHC:905
6. It is further submitted that the F.I.R.
was lodged alleging that on 09.10.2020,
when the applicants visited the house of
respondent no.2, they allegedly
manhandled the brother of the informant.
After investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted charge-sheet against the
applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506
and 452 I.P.C., upon which the learned
Magistrate took cognizance and issued
summoning order dated 02.08.2021.
7. Learned counsel for the parties jointly
submit that the dispute has now been
amicably settled between the applicants
and the private respondents. A joint
compounding application supported by
affidavits of both sides has been filed before
this Court. It is stated therein that
applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 have
been living separately for a considerable
period; respondent no.2 has issued notice
of divorce to applicant no.1 in accordance
with law; and a sum of ₹12,00,000/- has
been paid to applicant no.1 towards full
and final settlement and permanent
alimony. It is further averred that the
parties have agreed to withdraw all
litigations pending against each other and
that no grievance survives between them.
8. The applicants and private
respondents are present through Video
Conferencing and have been duly identified
by their respective counsel. On specific
query put by this Court, they unequivocally
state that the dispute arose out of
matrimonial discord, which now stands
resolved; that the settlement has been
entered into voluntarily without any
2026:UHC:905
coercion or undue influence; and that they
have no objection if the criminal
proceedings are quashed.
9. This Court has considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record. The offences alleged are under
Sections 323, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C.,
which, though not all compoundable under
Section 320 Cr.P.C., arise out of a purely
personal and matrimonial dispute without
any element of public interest.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
has authoritatively held that in exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the High Court may quash criminal
proceedings involving non-compoundable
offences where the dispute is essentially of
a private and personal nature and the
parties have settled the matter, provided
the offences do not have serious societal
impact. Similarly, in Narinder Singh v.
State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down guiding
principles for quashing of criminal
proceedings on the basis of compromise,
inter alia, that where the offences are
predominantly of civil character arising out
of matrimonial or family disputes, and the
parties have resolved their differences, the
High Court should lean in favour of
quashing to secure the ends of justice.
Further, in State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, it has
been reiterated that criminal proceedings
arising from matrimonial disputes and
family matters, which have been amicably
2026:UHC:905
settled, can be quashed in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction, as the continuation of
such proceedings would amount to abuse of
the process of Court.
11. In the present case, the allegations
stem from matrimonial discord; the parties
have amicably resolved their dispute;
permanent alimony has been paid; and they
are living separately with no subsisting
claims against each other. There is no
allegation of any heinous offence or offence
affecting society at large, thus, continuation
of the criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose
12. In view of the settlement arrived at
between the parties and in light of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the aforesaid judgments, this Court is
satisfied that it is a fit case for exercising
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
13. Accordingly, the compounding
application is allowed. Consequently, the
present C-528 application stands allowed.
The impugned cognizance/ summoning
order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division)/Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, District Haridwar in Criminal
Case No. 861 of 2021, as well as the entire
criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are
hereby quashed qua the applicants.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
13.02.2026
Mamta
2026:UHC:905
