Uttarakhand High Court
C482/2487/2023 on 16 July, 2026
UKHC010207062023
2026:UHC:5937
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2487 of 2023
16th July, 2026
Mayank Malhotra
2: Santosh (deceased)
3: Tripta
4: Ms. Annu Chawla
--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
2: Kamakshi Soni Malhotra
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Soniya Chawla, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Deepak Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent no.2.
By means of the present criminal
miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicants have sought to quash the proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 2103 of 2018 and further be pleased
to set aside the summoning/cognizance order dated
17/04/2018 along with all consequential orders.
2. The facts in brief of the case as stated in the
criminal miscellaneous application are as follows:-
“(i) The marriage of the applicant no.1 and the
respondent no.2 was solemnized on 09.06.2014 at
Blessing Farm, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun, according
to Hindu Rites and ceremonies.
1
UKHC010207062023
2026:UHC:5937
(ii) Out of the marriage, one baby boy namely
Agrim was born on 03.03.2015, who is in the
custody of the opposite party no.2.
(iii) From the very beginning differences arose
between the parties and they could not adjust with
each other in spite of their best efforts, though the
marriage of the parties continued with all thick and
thin and they tried to cope up with each; during
this push and pull they gave birth to their child,
the common friends and parents did their level best
to get the difference of the applicant no.1 and the
opposite party no.2, but the differences could not
be resolved.
(iv) The parties to the petition have been living
separately since 02.02.2017 and they are not been
able to live together as husband and wife
thereafter.
(v) Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 lodged
one complaint resulting into FIR which was
registered as FIR No. 153/2017 u/s 498 A, 504 IPC
and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station
Cantt, District-Dehradun.
(vi) The investigation officer filed the charge sheet
no. 24 of 2018 dated 27.02.2018 U/s 498-A, & 504
of IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
against the present applicants before the learned
trial court.”
(vii) On the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned
IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun, summoned the present applicant to
face the trial under Sections 498-A, 504 of IPC &
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide
summoning/cognizance order dated 17.04.2018.
3. Assailing the proceedings of Criminal Case
No.2103 of 2018, State vs. Mayank Malhotra and others,
2
UKHC010207062023
2026:UHC:5937
and the summoning/cognizance order dated 17.04.2018
and the consequential orders, learned counsel for the
applicants would submit that the applicant no.1 and the
opposite party no.2 have dissolved their marriage
through mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act
bearing Case No. 286/2018 and vide judgment and order
dated 05.10.2018, the petition under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act bearing Case No. 286/2018, Mayank
Malhotra vs. Kamakshi Soni, was allowed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun and the
marriage between the parties dated 27.06.2012 has been
dissolved by a decree of divorce.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel
for the applicants that since the applicant no.1 and
opposite party no.2 have already filed and obtained the
decree of divorce by mutual consent in the divorce
petition filed under section 13 B (1) Hindu Marriage Act
and have settled all their grievances amicably and
nothing is left between the parties, hence the opposite
party no.2 does not want to continue the proceedings
emanating from the aforesaid FIR against the applicants.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel
for the applicants that the notices were issued to
3
UKHC010207062023
2026:UHC:5937
respondent no.2, but the service report dated 02.05.2024
states that the notices sent to respondent no.2 by
registered post as per the report of track consignment,
notice has been delivered. It appears that in spite of
notice of this case, the respondent no.2 is not appearing
to contest the matter.
6. In such view of the matter, vide order dated
10.07.2026, this Court requested Mr. Vikas Bahuguna,
Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf
of respondent no.2 to which he had kindly consented for
appearing on behalf of respondent no.2.
7. It is further submitted on behalf of the learned
counsel for the applicants that if the proceedings of the
criminal case are allowed to continue, the same shall be
a futile exercise and under the facts and circumstances
of the case, in the interest of justice, the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.2103 of 2018 be
quashed so as to enable the parties to lead a peaceful life
in future.
8. The counsel for the applicants would rely upon
a judgment of this Court rendered in criminal misc. case
No. 478 of 2023, Anurag Mani Tiwari vs. State of
Uttarakhand and another, wherein, in similar
4
UKHC010207062023
2026:UHC:5937
circumstances, the court has been pleased to quash the
summoning order and the charge-sheet, wherein the
marriage between the parties has been dissolved under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The relevant
portion of the said order dated 11.06.2026 is being
extracted hereunder:-
“9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn
the attention of the Court to a judgment and order dated
07.10.2023, passed by the Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the petition under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been
decreed and the marriage between the parties has been
dissolved. By making reference to the aforesaid order
dated 07.10.2023, the learned counsel for the applicant
would make a submission that nothing now remains in
as much as the marriage between the parties has been
dissolved by decree of mutual consent.
10. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for
the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others VS.
State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2003) 4
SCC 675 and drawn the attention of the Court in para 10
thereof. Para no. 10 is being extracted for ready reference
:-
“10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (1977)
2 SCC 699], considering the scope of inherent power of
quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the
exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled
to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends
of justice so require. It was ob served that in a criminal
case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very
nature of the material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court
in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and
that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere
law though justice had got to be administered according to
laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the
compelling necessity for making these observations is that
without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the
provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the
High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects,5
UKHC0102070620232026:UHC:5937
it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours
of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that
there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being
convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of
the case where the wife does not support the imputations
made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed,
now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at
her instance due to temperamental differences and implied
imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting
the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she
has resolved disputes with her husband and his other
family members and as a result thereof she has again
started living with her husband with whom she earlier had
differences or she has willingly parted company and is living
happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier
marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of
parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other
similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be
no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline
to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would
be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable
offences. Answer clearly has to be in “negative”. It would,
however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts
declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons
including lack of bona fides.”
11. It is also clear from the aforesaid judgment in the
case of B.S. Joshi and Others (Supra) that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court having noticed that there has been an
outburst of matrimonial dispute in the recent time and
has also considered that if marriage having been
dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or the
complainant fails to support the prosecution case on
some other similar grounds and when there would almost
be no chance of conviction, it would not be proper to
decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that
it would be permitting the parties to compound
noncompoundable offence. In such view, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court proceeded to quash the FIR.
12. Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State
would submit that now since the applicant and the
respondent no.2 are separated, there will be no fruitful
purpose in letting the matter to go for trial.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would also
make a similar submission that since the applicant and
the respondent no.2 have already separated by virtue of
6
UKHC010207062023
2026:UHC:5937
mutual decree of dissolution of marriage, hence there
would be no useful purpose in letting the matter to go for
trial and as such, he has no objection to the quashing of
the entire criminal proceedings.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and particularly in view of the fact that the
marriage between the applicant and the respondent no.2
has already been dissolved under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also in view of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and
Another (Supra), there will be no useful purpose in
letting the matter to go for trial, hence, the instant
Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
deserves to be allowed.
15. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Misc. Application
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and
the charge-sheet as well as the summoning order dated
02.03.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate / IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 1730
of 2022 are hereby quashed.”
9. Learned amicus curiae for the respondent no.2
does not deny the said position of law, as being
submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the
applicants. Learned amicus curiae further submits that
the position of law as has been submitted on behalf of
the learned counsel for the applicants is correct and in
such circumstances of the case, wherein, the respondent
no.2, the wife, after getting a mutual divorce decree, is
not participating in the proceedings, the criminal
proceedings can be quashed.
10. Learned Additional Advocate General-Mr. G.S.
Sandhu would also not deny the said position of law.
7
UKHC010207062023
2026:UHC:5937
11. In such view of the matter, since the marriage
of the applicant and respondent no.2 has already been
dissolved by decree of mutual consent, hence, there will
be no useful purpose in letting the matter to go into trial.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and
others vs. State of Haryana and another reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 675 and also, the judgment of this court
rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous application No.478 of
2023, Anurag Mani Tiwari vs. State of Uttarakhand and
another, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
deserves to be allowed.
13. Thus the entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No.2103 of 2018, State vs. Mayank Malhotra and others,
pending in the court of the IVth Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun and the summoning/cognizance
order dated 17.04.2018 are hereby quashed.
14. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application is,
accordingly, allowed.
15. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of accordingly.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
16th July, 2026
Nahid/Ravi
8
