Uttarakhand High Court
C528/426/2026 on 16 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1744
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C528/426/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the
applicants.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3. Mr. Poonam Rauthan, learned counsel
for private respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been filed
seeking quashing of the impugned
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order
dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in Criminal
Case No.1274 of 2019, arising out of offences
under Sections 498-A, 323 & 506 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.2 (wife). Applicant nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are
the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law
and brother-in-law of respondent no.2
respectively. It is contended that due to
certain matrimonial differences, respondent
no.2 lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 498-A,
323 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act; that, Investigating
Officer after completion of investigation has
submitted chargesheet against the
applicants, upon which, learned trial court
2026:UHC:1744
has taken cognizance.
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. As per the settlement,
applicant no.1 has agreed to pay a total sum
of ₹19,00,000/- to respondent no.2 towards
full and final settlement. Out of the aforesaid
settled amount, a sum of ₹10,00,000/- has
already been paid to respondent no.2 at the
time of first motion, and the remaining
amount shall be paid at the time of filing of
evidence.
7. The applicants and respondent no.2 are
present through Video Conferencing before
the Court and have been duly identified by
their respective counsel. On being interacted
with, respondent no.2 has categorically
stated that the compromise has been entered
into voluntarily, without any coercion or
undue influence; that she has received
₹10,00,000/-; 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 498-A, 323 & 506 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 nature,
2026:UHC:1744
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:1744
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 chargsheet, cognizance/summoning order dated
19.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar,
District Dehradun in Criminal Case No.1274
of 2019, arising out of offences under
Sections 498-A, 323 & 506 I.P.C. and Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as
the entire criminal proceedings are hereby
quashed the applicants in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the parties.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
16.03.2026
Mamta
2026:UHC:1744