2025:UHC:10306 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 2073 of 2025 20 November, 2025 Karan Singh And Ors --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Pawar, learned counsel for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Present C528 application has been filed by the applicant along with the joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) for quashing the charge-sheet dated 14.02.2025; cognizance/summoning order dated 22.07.2024 under Sections 115, 351(3), 85 of BNS, 2023 & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in respect of applicant no.1, under Section 351(3), 85 of BNS, 2023 & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in respect of applicant nos.2 to 5 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.99 of 2025, State vs. Karan Singh & others, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. 2. The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is 2025:UHC:10306 2 thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable. 4. Applicant no.1-Karan Singh (husband) and applicant no.2-Sukhdev Singh (father-in-law), applicant no.3-Surjeet Kaur (Mother-in-law), applicant no.4-Rajendra Singh, applicant no.5-Mr. Sarjeet and respondent no.2- Smt. Jyoti (wife) are present in the Court being duly identified by their respective counsel. 5. In the compounding application, it has been stated that applicants and respondent no.2 have amicably resolved their dispute and they do not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings. 6. Upon interaction with the parties, it has been submitted that applicant no. 1 (husband) and respondent no. 2 (wife) have decided to get separated, and for that purpose, they will file a petition for mutual divorce. 7. Along with the C528 application, a compromise agreement has been filed, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the C528 application. In the compromise agreement, it is agreed between the parties that applicant no. 1 (husband) and respondent no. 2 (wife), of their own free will, will obtain a divorce by mutual consent from the competent court. 8. Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to ask the applicant to appear before the trial court as 2025:UHC:10306 3 accused to face the trial. 9. 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: - “If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” 10. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 582 of the BNSS, 2023. Further the dispute sought to be resolve is a matrimonial dispute which should be put to an end. 11. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be 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 after settlement. 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. 12. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.07.2024 under Sections 115, 351(3), 85 of BNS, 2023 & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in respect of applicant no.1, under Section 351(3), 85 of BNS, 2023 & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in respect of applicant nos.2 2025:UHC:10306 4 to 5 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.99 of 2025, State vs. Karan Singh & others, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed. FIR dated 01.12.2024 and the charge- sheet filed pursuant thereto also stand quashed. 13. Present criminal misc. application thus stands allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.11.2025 AK