Uttarakhand High Court
C528/512/2026 on 25 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2163
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C-528 No.512 of 2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G.
along with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Tijil Gangwar, proxy counsel for
Mr. Harsh Taneja, 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 19.12.2024 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st, Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 94
of 2025, for the offences punishable under
Section 80(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of
F.I.R. No. 239 of 2024, presently pending in
the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh
Nagar in terms of the compromise arrived at
between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by
respondent no.2, alleging therein that the
marriage of the applicant with the daughter
of respondent no.2 (since deceased) was
solemnized according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that
after the marriage, the deceased was
subjected to harassment and cruelty by the
applicant and his family members on
2026:UHC:2163
account of non-fulfilment of demand of
dowry.
6. It is further alleged that on 19.09.2024,
the complainant received information
through a phone call that his daughter had
died and that her death had allegedly been
caused due to consumption of poison. On
the basis of the said allegations, the present
F.I.R. was lodged and after completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a charge-sheet against the
applicant, upon which the learned trial court
took cognizance and the matter was
committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that after committal of
the case, the charges have already been
framed and the trial has commenced. The
father and the brother of the deceased have
been examined before the trial court as PW-1
and PW-2, and in their statements they have
not supported the prosecution case and have
denied the allegations made in the F.I.R.
8. It is further submitted that the parties
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
dispute has been resolved amicably and that
the complainant does not intend to
prosecute the applicant any further.
9. Learned counsel would also submit
that the applicant is presently in judicial
custody in connection with the present case
and in view of the compromise arrived at
between the parties, the continuation of the
2026:UHC:2163
criminal proceedings would serve no useful
purpose.
10. The respondent no.2 is present in
person before the Court and has been duly
identified by his learned counsel. Upon
interaction with the Court, respondent no.2
has categorically stated that the matter has
been amicably settled between the parties
and that he does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the applicant
any further. He has further stated that he
has no objection if the criminal proceedings
against the applicant are quashed.
11. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application on the ground that the
allegations pertain to serious offences which
are non-compoundable in nature. However,
he does not dispute the factum of
compromise between the parties nor the
filing of the joint compounding application
supported by their affidavits.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
13. From the material placed before this
Court, it transpires that the dispute between
the parties arose out of a matrimonial
discord. It is also evident that the material
witnesses, namely the father and brother of
the deceased, who are the informant and
close relatives of the deceased, have already
been examined before the trial court and
they have not supported the prosecution
version.
13. In their statements before the trial
court, the said witnesses have not attributed
any specific role to the applicant in
connection with the alleged harassment or
2026:UHC:2163
cruelty for dowry, nor have they supported
the prosecution case regarding the
circumstances leading to the death of the
deceased.
14. It is true that the offences alleged in the
present case are non-compoundable in
nature. However, it is well settled that the
High Court, in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may
quash criminal proceedings even in respect
of non-compoundable offences where the
Court is satisfied that the dispute is
essentially of a private or personal nature
and that continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of the
process of the Court.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
303 has held that the High Court may quash
criminal proceedings in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction where the dispute
between the parties is overwhelmingly
personal or matrimonial in nature and the
parties have resolved their dispute amicably,
provided that such exercise of power would
secure the ends of justice. Similarly, in
Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6
SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
laid down the principles governing the
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise and held
that the Court must consider whether the
continuation of criminal proceedings would
be futile and would not serve the ends of
justice.
16. Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State
of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent
power of the High Court under Section 482
2026:UHC:2163
Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude and may be
exercised to quash criminal proceedings in
order to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court or to secure the ends of justice, having
regard to the nature of the offence and the
facts and circumstances of the case.
17. In the present case, this Court finds
that the informant himself has appeared
before the Court and has unequivocally
stated that he has settled the dispute with
the applicant and does not wish to pursue
the criminal proceedings. Moreover, the
principal prosecution witnesses have already
been examined before the trial court and
have not supported the prosecution case,
thereby substantially weakening the
substratum of the prosecution case.
18. In such circumstances, the possibility
of the prosecution securing a conviction
against the applicant appears to be remote
and bleak, and therefore continuation of the
criminal proceedings would serve no useful
purpose and would amount to abuse of the
process of the Court.
19. Considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of the
dispute between the parties, the statements
of the material witnesses recorded before the
trial court, and the compromise arrived at
between the parties, this Court is of the
considered view that it is a fit case for
exercising inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
20. Accordingly, the compounding
application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) is allowed.
21. Consequently, the charge-sheet as well
as the cognizance/summoning order dated
19.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial
2026:UHC:2163
Magistrate 1st,
Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2025
for the offences punishable under Section
80(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, arising out of F.I.R. No.239
of 2024, pending in the court of learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, along with the
entire criminal proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the
applicant.
22. The applicant is stated to be in judicial
custody in connection with the present case.
He shall be released forthwith as per law, if
not required in any other case.
23. The present C-528 application is,
accordingly, allowed.
24. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra J.)
25.03.2026
Mamta
MAMTA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e43
0ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e689
11ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.03.31 10:34:04 +05’30’
[ad_1]
Source link
