Uttarakhand High Court
C528/203/2026 on 13 February, 2026
2026:UHC:920
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C528/203/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr Rishab Ranghar, 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. Mr. Lochan Sah, learned counsel for
private respondent no.3.
4. Present C-528 application has been filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing
of the impugned cognizance/ summoning
order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 4th, District
Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 4384 of
2024, arising out of offences under Sections
323, 498-A and 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with the
entire proceedings of the said criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the dispute in question
emanates from matrimonial discord between
applicant no.1 (husband) and respondent
no.3 (wife). Applicant nos.2 and 3 are the
father-in-law and mother-in-law of
respondent no.3. It is contended that due to
certain matrimonial differences, respondent
no.3 lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 323,
498-A and 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. Besides the present
criminal case, respondent no.3 also initiated
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., filed
an application under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
2026:UHC:920
Act, 2005, and instituted other ancillary
proceedings 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 mutual consent
and have filed the first motion petition under
Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code,
Uttarakhand on 28.04.2025. As per the
settlement, applicant no.1 has agreed to pay
a total sum of ₹17,50,000/- to respondent
no.3 towards full and final settlement. Out of
the aforesaid settled amount, a sum of
₹8,75,000/- has already been paid to
respondent no.3 at the time of first motion,
and the remaining amount shall be paid at
the time of second motion.
7. The applicants and respondent no.3 are
present through Video Conferencing and have
been duly identified by their respective
counsel. On being interacted with,
respondent no.3 has categorically stated that
the compromise has been entered into
voluntarily, without any coercion or undue
influence; that she has received ₹8,75,000/-;
and that she has no objection if the criminal
proceedings in question are quashed.
8. This Court has considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available on
record. The offences alleged are under
Sections 323, 498-A and 504 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
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
2026:UHC:920
nature, without any element of public interest
or societal impact.
9. The legal position with regard to
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
2026:UHC:920
continuation of proceedings would amount to
abuse of the process of law and whether
quashing would secure the ends of justice.
12. In the present case, the allegations stem
purely from matrimonial discord between the
husband and wife. The parties have amicably
settled their dispute; the first motion for
mutual divorce has been filed; substantial
part of the settled amount has already been
paid; and respondent no.3 has unequivocally
stated that she 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 cognizance/summoning order
dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate 4th, District Dehradun in
Criminal Case No. 4384 of 2024, as well as
the entire criminal proceedings are hereby
quashed the applicants.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
13.02.2026
Mamta
