Uttarakhand High Court
Dilip Kumar & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 10 July, 2026
UKHC010028462020
2026:UHC:5646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Compounding Application (IA No.608 of 2026)
In
Criminal Misc Application No.340 of 2020
Dilip Kumar & Anr. --Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. --Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Ananya Jain, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate
for the applicants.
Mr. Vipul Panuli, learned A.G.A for the State.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
The present criminal misc. application is filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the applicants seeking
quashing of the impugned cognizance order dated
06.08.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.5269 of 2019,
‘State vs. Saurabh Sharma and others‘ under Sections 498-
A read with 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and further to quash all the consequential
proceedings pursuant to the cognizance order dated
06.08.2019.
2. It is also reported that the applicant no.2,
Suruchi Sharma has died.
1
UKHC010028462020
2026:UHC:5646
3. During the pendency of the present Criminal
Misc. Application, Compounding Application (IA No. 608 of
2026) has been filed on behalf of the applicants and
respondent no. 2. An affidavit has been filed in support of
the compounding application on behalf of respondent no.
2/complainant, Swati Saurabh Sharma. In the affidavit,
respondent no. 2 has categorically stated that, during the
pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the deponent has
now entered into a compromise and has further resolved all
the disputes with her husband and the family members of
her husband.
4. It is further stated in the affidavit of respondent
no.2/complainant that detailed terms and conditions of the
compromise have already been entered in the form of
agreement on 28.04.2026, the parties have filed a divorce
suit on mutual consent before Principal Judge, Family
Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, further
presented themselves for first motion on 18.05.2026 in a
petition preferred for divorce on mutual consent.
5. It is also stated in the affidavit that the husband
of the deponent has agreed to pay permanent alimony. It is
further stated that the parties to the matrimony have
decided to resolve their disputes. Since applicant no. 1
herein is the father-in-law of the deponent, she does not
wish to further prosecute applicant no. 1. Accordingly, in
2
UKHC010028462020
2026:UHC:5646
the interest of justice, the cognizance order and the
proceedings sought to be challenged in the captioned
Criminal Misc. Application may be quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.
6. On interaction with respondent no.
2/complainant, who is appearing through video
conferencing and is duly identified by her counsel, Mr.
Gaurav Singh, Advocate, she stated that she wants to
resolve the matter and that the parties have filed a petition
for divorce by mutual consent before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. She
further stated that she does not wish to prosecute
applicant no. 1 and that the compounding application may
be allowed and the criminal proceedings may be quashed.
7. The Court also interacted with applicant no.1,
Dilip Kumar, who is appearing through video conferencing
and is duly identified by his counsel, Ms. Ananya Jain,
learned counsel holding brief for Mr. Sandeep Kothari,
Advocate. On such interaction, applicant no.1 also stated
that the matter has been resolved and that the
compounding application may be allowed and the criminal
proceedings may be quashed.
8. Learned State counsel raised an objection that
the offence is against society and Section 498-A of IPC is a
3
UKHC010028462020
2026:UHC:5646
non-compoundable offence, hence, the compounding
application cannot be allowed.
9. However, in view of the judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of “B.S. Joshi and others vs.
State of Haryana and another“, (2003) 4 SCC 675, “Nikhil
Merchant vs. CBI and another“, (2008) 9 SCC 650 and
“Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab”, 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, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted
the compounding of non-compoundable offence. Also, the
Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of
“Kedar Singh and three others vs. State of Uttarakhand
and others” reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Utt 2275 has in
identical circumstances permitted the compounding of
offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
10. Since the parties have already settled the matter
amicably and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid
cases, has permitted compounding in such matters, the
compounding application deserves to be allowed.
11. Since respondent no. 2/complainant has
consented to the compounding of the said offences, the
Compounding Application (IA No. 608 of 2026) is hereby
allowed.
4
UKHC010028462020
2026:UHC:5646
12. As a consequence thereof, the impugned
cognizance order dated 06.08.2019 passed by learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal
Case No.5269 of 2019, ‘State vs. Saurabh Sharma and
others‘ under Sections 498-A read with 34 of I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and other
consequential proceedings, if any, pursuant to the
cognizance order dated 06.08.2019, are hereby quashed.
13. The present Criminal Misc. Application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, thus, disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
10.07.2026
Akash
Digitally signed by AKASH
AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48
ef73518c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee492
24c891823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7,
cn=AKASH
Date: 2026.07.13 10:21:06 +05’30’
5
