C528/427/2026 on 17 March, 2026

    0
    32
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Uttarakhand High Court

    C528/427/2026 on 17 March, 2026

                                                                      2026:UHC:1884
    
                  Office Notes,
                 reports, orders
                 or proceedings
    SL.
          Date    or directions                COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
    No.
                 and Registrar's
                   order with
                   Signatures
                                   C528/427/2026
    
                                   Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
    

    Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the
    applicant.

    2. Mr. S.C. Dumkal, learned A.G.A. for the
    State.

    SPONSORED

    3. Ms. Poonam Rauthan, learned counsel
    for respondent no.2.

    4. Present C-528 application has been filed
    seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well
    as the cognizance/summoning order dated
    05.12.2015 passed by the learned Chief
    Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun in
    Criminal Case No. 934 of 2024, for the
    offences punishable under Sections 420, 313,
    506 and 376 I.P.C., pending in the court of
    learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
    Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, along with the
    entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

    5. Learned counsel for the applicant would
    submit that the respondent no.2/complainant
    had initially filed an application under Section
    156(3)
    Cr.P.C., alleging therein that the
    applicant had established physical relations
    with her on the pretext of marriage and had
    sexually assaulted her. It was further alleged
    that the applicant was already a married
    person. Pursuant to the said application, the
    matter was investigated by the Investigating
    Officer and, after completion of investigation, a
    charge-sheet was submitted against the
    applicant, on the basis of which the learned
    trial court took cognizance and summoned the
    applicant to face trial.

    6. Learned counsel for the applicant would
    2026:UHC:1884

    further submit that respondent no.2 is also a
    widow and that the dispute between the
    applicant and respondent no.2 has arisen out
    of personal differences between them. It is
    submitted that the applicant and the
    complainant/respondent no.2 have now
    amicably settled their dispute and do not wish
    to pursue the criminal proceedings any
    further. In this regard, a joint compounding
    application (I.A. No.1 of 2026), duly supported
    by the affidavits of the applicant as well as
    respondent no.2, has been filed before this
    Court stating that the complainant does not
    intend to prosecute the applicant and that the
    parties have resolved their dispute amicably.

    7. The applicant as well as respondent
    no.2/complainant are present through Video
    Conferencing before the Court and have been
    duly identified by their respective counsel.
    Upon interaction with the Court, both the
    parties have categorically stated that the
    dispute between them has been amicably
    settled and that respondent no.2 does not
    wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
    against the applicant any further.

    8. Learned State Counsel opposes the
    application on the ground that the allegations
    include offences punishable under Sections
    313
    and 376 I.P.C., which are non-
    compoundable in nature. However, he does
    not dispute the factum of compromise arrived
    at between the parties or the filing of the joint
    compounding application.

    9. Heard learned counsel for the parties
    and perused the material available on record.

    10. From the material placed on record, it
    appears that the dispute between the
    applicant and respondent no.2 arose out of a
    personal relationship between them. The
    2026:UHC:1884

    parties have now amicably resolved their
    dispute. A joint compounding application (I.A.
    No.1 of 2026), supported by their respective
    affidavits, has also been filed before this
    Court, wherein respondent no.2 has
    categorically stated that she does not wish to
    pursue the criminal proceedings against the
    applicant.

    11. Although the offences under Sections
    313
    and 376 I.P.C. are non-compoundable, it
    is well settled that the High Court, in exercise
    of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
    Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings in
    appropriate cases in order to secure the ends
    of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of
    the Court, even in respect of non-
    compoundable offences, if the Court is
    satisfied that the compromise between the
    parties is genuine and continuation of the
    proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

    12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
    Singh vs. State of Punjab
    , (2012) 10 SCC 303
    and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014)
    6 SCC 466 has held that criminal proceedings
    having overwhelmingly civil or personal
    flavour may be quashed on the basis of a
    compromise between the parties, even though
    the offences are non-compoundable, if the
    Court is satisfied that the compromise is
    genuine and that continuation of the
    proceedings would amount to abuse of the
    process of law.

    13. In the present case, this Court is
    satisfied that the compromise arrived at
    between the parties is voluntary, genuine and
    without any coercion. The complainant herself
    has appeared before the Court and has stated
    that she does not wish to prosecute the
    applicant any further.

    2026:UHC:1884

    14. Considering the aforesaid facts and
    circumstances of the case, as well as the law
    laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this
    Court is of the view that continuation of the
    criminal proceedings would serve no useful
    purpose and that this is a fit case to exercise
    the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
    in order to secure the ends of justice.

    15. Accordingly, the compounding
    application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) is allowed.

    16. Consequently, the charge-sheet as well
    as the cognizance/summoning order dated
    05.12.2015 passed by the learned Chief
    Judicial Magistrate, District Dehradun in
    Criminal Case No. 934 of 2024, for the
    offences punishable under Sections 420, 313,
    506 and 376 I.P.C., pending in the court of
    learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
    Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, along with the
    entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom,
    are hereby quashed.

    17. The present C-528 application is,
    accordingly, allowed.

    18. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
    disposed of.

    
    
              MAMTA
                                                                   (Alok Mahra J.)
    Mamta
              RANI                                                     17.03.2026
              Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
    

    DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
    COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
    2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef900
    bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001,
    st=Uttarakhand,
    serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b
    66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
    Date: 2026.03.19 14:54:57 +05’30’



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here