Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Shanker Rastogi And Others” on 23 March, 2026
COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. Dat
or directions
No. e
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
2026:UHC:2030
IA No.1/2026 (Compounding Application)
with
C528 No.486 of 2026
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the Applicants.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA with Mr. Nikhil
Bisht, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand/1.
3. Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2.
4. In the present Application filed under Section 528 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the Applicants
have put a challenge to the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No.920 of 2024, “State Vs. Shanker Rastogi and others“
under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and under
Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is
pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.
5. There is a compounding application also filed along
with present C528 Application as paper no.28, whereby it is
prayed that since the parties i.e. Applicant No.1 and the
Respondent No.2, do not wish to live together due to
temperamental differences, the matter may be compounded
and matter may be disposed of accordingly. The Applicants
and Respondent No.2 are present in person before this Court,
who have been duly identified by their learned counsel, and
after interacting with the parties the grounds for allowing the
compounding are found to be sufficient. The Applicants and
the Respondent No.2 have annexed their signatures and duly
endorsed by the learned counsel for the parties. The
application is also supported with an affidavit of the parties.
6. Today, the matter is listed for disposal of the aforesaid
compounding application.
7. As per the compounding application, there is a joint
submissions on behalf of the Applicants as well as the
Respondent No.2 that the incident happened due to
misunderstanding, and now they have reconciled the matter
and have come into the terms of the compromise and hence
the compounding application may be allowed and the matter
may be disposed of accordingly.
8. This Court is of the considered view that the grounds
for compounding are sufficient.
9. Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the
case, and particularly, the fact that the parties have settled
their dispute amicably, this Court finds ground sufficient for
allowing the compounding application.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
11. In view of the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble
the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab
reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer
Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs.
Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012,
criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court, if this
Court is satisfied that matter has been settled between the
parties amicably and parties are interested to restore peace and
harmony between them.
12. In view of the above, the compounding application is
allowed. The entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.920
of 2024, “State Vs. Shanker Rastogi and others” under
Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Sections
¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is pending
before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby
quashed.
13. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application, filed under
528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is
disposed of accordingly.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
23.03.2026
Nitesh/