Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1092/2026 on 22 May, 2026
2026:UHC:4036
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/1092/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Parikshit Saini (through V.C.)
and Ms. Sukhwani Singh, 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. Ms. Shazia Parveen, learned counsel
for respondent no.2/complainant.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the impugned
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning
order dated 26.07.2025 in Criminal Case
No.3276 of 2025 pending in court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haridwar as well as the entire criminal
proceedings of the aforesaid case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the dispute in question
emanates from matrimonial discord
between parties; that, certain matrimonial
differences, respondent no.2 lodged an
F.I.R. against the applicants; that,
Investigating Officer after completion of
investigation has submitted chargesheet,
upon which, learned trial court has taken
cognizance against the applicants.
6. It is further submitted that with the
intervention of respectable persons and
family members, the parties have amicably
resolved all their disputes. They have
decided to dissolve their marriage by
2026:UHC:4036
mutual consent and have filed petition
under Section 27 of the Uniform Civil
Code, Uttarakhand. It has further been
agreed between the parties that, in terms
of the settlement/compromise arrived at
between them, the applicants as well as
respondent no.2 shall withdraw all the
cases, complaints, and proceedings
pending against each other before the
competent courts/ authorities, in
accordance with law.
7. The applicants as well as respondent
no.2 are present before this Court through
Video Conferencing and have been duly
identified by their respective learned
counsel. Upon interaction with the Court,
respondent no.2 has categorically stated
that the compromise entered into between
the parties is voluntary in nature and has
been effected without any coercion,
pressure, or undue influence from any
quarter. Respondent no.2 has further
submitted that proceedings under Section
27 of the U.C.C. have already been
initiated between the parties and that he
has no objection if the criminal
proceedings in question are quashed on
the basis of the aforesaid compromise.
8. This Court has considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record. Though certain offences are
non-compoundable under Section 320
Cr.P.C., the dispute admittedly arises out
of a matrimonial relationship and is
personal in nature, without any element of
public interest or societal impact.
9. The legal position with regard to
2026:UHC:4036
quashing of criminal proceedings on the
basis of compromise is no longer res
integra. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively
held that the High Court, in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings
even in respect of non-compoundable
offences, where the dispute is essentially
private and personal in nature and the
parties have amicably settled the matter,
provided that the offences do not have
serious impact on society.
10. In Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid
down broad guidelines for quashing on the
basis of compromise and observed that
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly
those arising out of matrimonial or family
disputes, should be quashed when the
parties have resolved their entire dispute,
so as to secure the ends of justice.
11. Further, in State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reiterated that criminal
proceedings arising out of matrimonial
disputes and family matters, which have
been amicably settled, can be quashed in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction, unless
the offences are heinous and of serious
mental depravity. More recently, in
Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the
principles governing exercise of power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that
the High Court must evaluate whether
continuation of proceedings would amount
to abuse of the process of law and whether
2026:UHC:4036
quashing would secure the ends of justice.
12. In the present case, the allegations
stem purely from matrimonial discord.
The parties have amicably settled their
dispute; the first motion for mutual
divorce has been filed and respondent
no.2 has unequivocally stated that he has
no objection to quashing of the
proceedings. There is no allegation of any
heinous offence, nor is there any element
affecting society at large. Continuation of
criminal proceedings, in such
circumstances, would serve no fruitful
purpose.
13. 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, the
compounding application is allowed.
Consequently, the present C-528
application stands allowed. The impugned
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning
order dated 26.07.2025 in Criminal Case
No.3276 of 2025 pending in court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haridwar as well as the entire criminal
proceedings of the aforesaid case are
hereby quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the
parties.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
MA
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
(Alok Mahra, J.)
ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
22.05.2026
MTA
Mamta 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46
f244f3e584af1449e430ef90
0bf09a6d67ebbd64267132
9b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.05.26 11:17:21
+05’30’
