Uttarakhand High Court
Rajnish And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 23 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.73 of 2015
Rajnish and others ...Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, AGA for the State.
Mr. M.K. Ray, Amicus Curiae for respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.(Oral)
By means of the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants
have sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 18.02.2014,
summoning order dated 09.04.2014 and the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1620/2014 (New
No.1751/2014), State vs. Rajnish and others, under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, P.S. Kotwali, Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar,
pending in the court of the Additional Civil Judge
(S.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
2. Facts in brief are that the FIR was lodged by
respondent no.2 with the allegations that the respondent
no.2 was married with applicant no.1 on 24.11.2012 and
after the marriage, her husband and other family members
used to torture and harass the complainant/respondent no.2
for want of dowry and ultimately the accused persons ousted
the complainant from the matrimonial house on 09.01.2013.
2
3. It is the case of the applicants that during the
course of investigation, the matter was settled between the
parties and the respondent no.2 has received Rs.3,50,000/-
from the applicants and on the basis of mutual consent, a
divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act
was filed on 21.02.2014. It is the case of the applicants that
even after the aforesaid development and full knowledge of
compromise, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-
sheet against the applicants. After receiving the charge-
sheet, the trial court has summoned the applicants and
directed to face trial in the matter.
4. It has been pleaded on behalf of the applicants
that the matrimonial dispute has been settled amicably and
respondent no.2 has received permanent alimony and
further petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act
has already been filed by the parties, therefore, continuation
of the instant criminal proceeding against the applicants is
nothing but an abuse of process of law.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit
that though the petition under Section 13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act could not fructify into a consent decree,
however, the matter was decided on its own merit and vide
judgment and order dated 12.05.2016, the Additional Judge,
Family Court, Roorkee District Haridwar allowed the divorce
petition instituted by the wife/respondent no.2 herein and
the marriage between the applicant no.1 and respondent
3
no.2 herein solemnized on 24.11.2012 was dissolved by
decree of divorce. He further submits that in view of the said
divorce decree, respondent no.2 is not interested to pursue
the matter any further and letting the matter go into trial
would be a futile exercise.
6. In fact, in the pre-lunch session, earlier counsel
for respondent no.2-Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi expressed his
inability to continue with the matter and submitted that he
has no instructions to appear on behalf of respondent no.2.
In such an eventuality, the Court requested Mr. M.K. Ray,
Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae to which he
has very kindly consented and he is now present before the
Court and appearing on behalf of respondent no.2.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. M.K. Ray would
submit that it would be a futile exercise. The respondent
no.2 has given an affidavit to the S.S.P., Roorkee, District
Haridwar that she does not want to pursue the matter any
further.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has further
drawn the attention of the Court to a compromise between
the parties which is placed on record as part of Annexure
No.2. In the compromise which is in the form of the receipt
which was filed before the S.S.P., Haridwar, it has been
stated by the respondent no.2 as first party and applicant
no.1 as second party that the respondent no.2 has received
4
Rs.3,50,000/- in due of her entire maintenance and the
parties are ready for dissolving their marriage with mutual
consent.
9. Learned AGA for the State also does not dispute
the aforesaid situation that the respondent no.2 is no longer
interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against the
applicants.
10. It is also apt to refer to a judgment of this Court in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1675 of 2022, Sanjay
Chatral vs. State of Uttarakhand, wherein in similar
circumstances, this Court had quashed the criminal
proceedings. In the said case, it was held that since the
dispute between the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2
already stands settled by virtue of the decree of mutual
divorce and the respondent no.2 has already received her
permanent alimony from the applicants and she does not
want to participate any sort of criminal proceedings, hence
in such a case, letting the matter go into trial would
tantamount to abuse of process of law.
11. In the present case also, it is admitted to all that
decree of divorce has already been passed and the marriage
between the parties has been dissolved by the decree of
divorce. Therefore, letting the matter go into trial would be
a futile exercise and in the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is a fit case for interference under Section 482 of the
5
Cr.P.C., hence the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed and the impugned charge-sheet dated 18.02.2014,
summoning order dated 09.04.2014 and the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1620/2014 (New
No.1751/2014), State vs. Rajnish and others, under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, P.S. Kotwali, Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar,
pending in the court of the Additional Civil Judge
(S.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are
hereby quashed.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
23.07.2026
Ravi
