2025:UHC:5362 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 824 of 2024 23 June, 2025 Haruli Davi@Heera Davi .………Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others …….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with Ms. Shweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral). Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant to quash/set aside the impugned chargesheet, impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 11.01.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.89 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the record are that an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.2/complainant alleging that the applicant (mother-in-law of the deceased) subjected the deceased (his daughter) to mental and physical harassment under the influence of her own married daughter. On 21.04.2022, a quarrel occurred between the deceased and the applicant, a video clip 2025:UHC:5362 2 of which was sent by the deceased to her brother. Subsequently, when the respondent no.2/complainant was unable to contact the deceased, he visited her house and found her admitted to Medicity Hospital, Rudrapur. She was referred to Bareilly for further treatment, where she succumbed. Based on the complaint, investigation was carried out and a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant and respondent no.2 submit that the matter has been amicably settled and respondent no.2 does not wish to prosecute the applicant further. A joint compounding application (IA 1 of 2024) along with affidavits has been filed to this effect. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel would oppose the compounding application on the ground that the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is non- compoundable in terms of Section 359 B.N.S.S. and that the allegations are grave in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Daxaben v. State of Gujarat 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving serious offences cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise. 5. The Court has perused the record and considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Aparna Bhat & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another passed 2025:UHC:5362 3 SLP No. 2531 of 2021, has reiterated that serious criminal offences cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise. 7. In the present case, the allegation pertains to the abetment of suicide of the daughter of respondent no.2/complainant, with prima facie evidence on record, including a video clip shared by the deceased. The matter involves serious factual disputes that can only be properly adjudicated by the trial court upon appreciation of evidence. The matter involves serious factual disputes that can only be properly adjudicated by the trial court upon appreciation of evidence. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a young woman has lost her life in an untimely and tragic manner. In such circumstances, it is incomprehensible how the applicant and respondent no.2/complainant can be permitted to enter into a compromise concerning the life of the deceased, who looked up to this Court and the justice system for redress and accountability. 8. Accordingly, the compounding application is rejected. 9. Since the prayer for quashing the proceedings is based solely on the compromise, and 2025:UHC:5362 4 the compounding application stands rejected, no case is made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Consequently, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 11. At this stage of dictation, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the trial court proceedings have been pending since 2022 and the applicant is an elderly woman, approximately 64 years of age. Therefore, a request is made that the trial court may be directed to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a fixed time frame. 12. In view of the above, the trial court is directed to make all endeavour to decide the pending case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. 13. No order as to costs. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 23.06.2025 Mamta