C528/578/2026 on 2 April, 2026

    0
    42
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Uttarakhand High Court

    C528/578/2026 on 2 April, 2026

                                                                     2026:UHC:2369
                  Office Notes,
                 reports, orders
                 or proceedings
    SL.
          Date    or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
    No.
                 and Registrar's
                   order with
                   Signatures
                                   C528/578/2026
    
                                   Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
    

    Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel
    for the applicant.

    2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the
    State.

    SPONSORED

    3. Ms. Aiswharya Thapliyal, learned
    counsel for respondent no.2.

    4. Present C-528 application has been
    filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet,
    cognizance/summoning order dated
    16.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial
    Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh
    Nagar in Criminal Case No. 1630 of 2023,
    under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and
    under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
    Act as well as the entire criminal
    proceedings arising therefrom.

    5. Learned counsel for the applicant
    would submit that the present case arises
    out of matrimonial discord; that applicant
    no.1 and respondent no.2 are husband and
    wife. Due to certain matrimonial disputes
    between them, respondent no.2 lodged a
    complaint under Sections 323, 498-A and
    506 I.P.C. and under Sections 3/4 of the
    Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant
    as well as the mother of the applicant.
    Pursuant thereto, after completion of
    investigation, the Investigating Officer
    submitted the charge-sheet against the
    applicant and his mother, on which the
    learned trial court took cognizance. He
    would further submit that during the
    2026:UHC:2369
    pendency of the criminal proceedings, the
    mother of the applicant (mother-in-law of
    respondent no.2) has expired and the death
    certificate in this regard has been annexed
    as Annexure No.4 to the C-528 application.

    6. Learned counsel for the applicant
    would submit that applicants 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 (IA No. 1 of 2026),
    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 applicants.

    7. The applicants and respondent no.
    2/complainant are present in person and
    have been duly identified by their respective
    counsel. Upon interaction with the Court,
    both the applicant and respondent no. 2
    have stated that they are now living together
    happily and are discharging their
    matrimonial obligations peacefully. They
    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.

    2026:UHC:2369

    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, who
    are husband and wife, are present before
    this Court and have been duly identified by
    their respective counsel. Upon interaction,
    both have unequivocally stated that they
    have amicably resolved their differences and
    are now residing together peacefully. A joint
    compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2026),
    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
    2026:UHC:2369
    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
    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 16.10.2023 passed by the learned
    Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District
    Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.
    1630 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323,
    506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the
    Dowry Prohibition Act as well as the entire
    criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are
    hereby quashed the applicant.

    16. The present C-528 application stands
    allowed accordingly.

    17. Pending applications, if any, shall
    stand disposed of accordingly.

    MAMTA
    RANI
    (Alok Mahra J.)
    Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
    DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
    COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
    2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef90
    0bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001,
    st=Uttarakhand,
    serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
    b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
    02.04.2026
    Mamta Date: 2026.04.06 17:13:03 +05’30’
    2026:UHC:2369



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here