No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-482 No. 1170 of 2021 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Rajat Rastogi, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.2. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with the prayer to set-aside and quash the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2220 of 2020, State Vs. Nitesh Sharma and Another, under Sections 498-A and 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned ACJM-I, Dehradun. 5. Now, Compounding Application is filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offences between the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise. 7. Parties are virtually present before this Court and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Parties have also filed their respective affidavits stating the facts of compromise between them. 8. The Court interacted with the parties. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 submits that now they have decided to live separately pursuant to which they have filed divorce petition under Section 27 of UCC before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, in which first motion has already been passed. It is further submitted by her that she has amicably settled her dispute with the applicants and she does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicants. 9. At this stage, learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non- compoundable. 10. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page 675, has permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences with the permission of Court. 11. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of its judgments, has observed that in cases where because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings as continuation of the same would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused. 12. Following the aforesaid ratio, the present compounding application is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2220 of 2020, State Vs. Nitesh Sharma and Another, under Sections 498- A and 504 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned ACJM-I, Dehradun, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. FIR and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed. 13. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Alok Mahra J.) 29.04.2026 Ujjwal