2025:UHC:7975 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 1475 of 2025 09th September, 2025 Anil Kumar …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. Mr. B.S. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The present C528 application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the cognizance order dated 07.08.2025, in Criminal Case No.83 of 2025, State Vs. Anil Kumar, (FIR No.63 of 2025) under Section 69 of B.N.S. 2023 registered at Police Station Jhankaiya, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. A joint compounding application has been moved on behalf of the parties, supported by their respective affidavits, seeking to compound offences under the aforesaid sections. 3. In the compounding application, it has been stated that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial and applicant no.1 (husband) and respondent no.2 (wife) have entered into a compromise and they want to live amicably and do not want to proceed with the present case for the reason that both have solemnized marriage. 4. The applicant no.1-Anil Kumar (husband) and 1 2025:UHC:7975 respondent no.2-Palak Mourya (wife) are present before the Court, through video conferencing, duly recognized and identified by their respective counsel. 5. On interaction with the applicant and respondent no.2, they submit that their marriage was solemnized on 04.09.2025 and the same is registered with the Registrar of Marriage, District Udham Singh Nagar and a certificate to this effect has been issued on 09.09.2025 and the same is taken on record. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has raised objection to compounding in the present case on the ground that the offence is non-compoundable. 7. So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and has held as below: - “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 8. Having considered the submissions made by 2 2025:UHC:7975 learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise and also entered into matrimony, there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter. 9. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA No.1 of 2025) is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the cognizance order dated 07.08.2025, in Criminal Case No.83 of 2025, State Vs. Anil Kumar, (FIR No.63 of 2025) under Section 69 of B.N.S. 2023 registered at Police Station Jhankaiya, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar, shall stand quashed. Consequently entire proceedings of the aforesaid Criminal Case are also quashed. 10. Accordingly C528 application stands disposed- off, in the aforesaid terms. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.09.2025 SK 3