Uttarakhand High Court
C528/435/2026 on 17 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1825
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C528/435/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Vishesh Srivastava, learned counsel
for the applicants.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3. Mr. Vikram Singh Dhapola, 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 14.07.2022 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in
Criminal Case No.5012 of 2022, 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 no.2 is mother-in-law,
sister-in-law of respondent no.2. 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 has taken cognizance.
6. It is further submitted that with the
2026:UHC:1825
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 ₹3,25,000/- to respondent no.2 towards
full and final settlement, and the parties have
also agreed to withdraw all the cases pending
against each other.
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 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,
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
2026:UHC:1825
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
quashing would secure the ends of justice.
12. In the present case, the allegations stem
2026:UHC:1825
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.2 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 14.07.2022 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun in Criminal Case No.5012 of 2022,
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 in
terms of the compromise arrived at between
the parties.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
MAM
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
TA (Alok Mahra, J.)
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
17.03.2026
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b
Mamta 66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd
004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.03.19 14:57:17
+05'30'