2025:UHC:4617 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 572 of 2025 06 June, 2025 Harpreet Singh Kalra and others --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Ayush Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no.3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the First Information Report No.0037 of 2024 dated 27.06.2024, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1860, registered with Police Station Ranipokhari, District Dehradun on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. 2. Along with present criminal writ petition, a joint compounding application has also been filed by the parties, which is duly supported by separate affidavits of the parties. 3. In the compounding application, it has been stated that the dispute between the parties is purely a matrimonial dispute and petitioner no.1 (husband) and respondent no.3(wife) have entered into compromise and decided to live separately in future and for that, 1 2025:UHC:4617 they have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is registered as O.S. No.197 of 2024 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, Dehradun wherein the date of second motion is fixed for 02.07.2025. Thus, respondent no.3 does not want to prosecute the petitioners. 4. Petitioner no.1-Harpreet Singh Kalra (husband of respondent no.3), petitioner no.2-Harjit Singh (father-in-law of respondent no.3), petitioner no.3-Nirmal Kaur (mother-in-law of respondent no.3) and respondent no.3-Ankita Verma (wife) are present in the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel. 5. This Court interacted with the parties specifically respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 stated before the Court that she has no grievance against the petitioners; she wants to live separately of the petitioner no.1 and for said purpose both of them has decided to seek mutual divorce and a mutual divorce petition has already been filed by them; and she does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case. 6. It has been agreed between the parties that petitioner no.1 (husband) shall pay a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- to the respondent no.3-wife. Out of which, petitioner no.1 has already paid Rs.3,00,000/- through demand draft no.988414 dated 09.09.2024 drawn on the State Bank of India, Patiala and Rs.1,50,000/- through demand draft no.988470 dated 01.11.2024 and the remaining amount i.e. Rs.4,25,000/- was to be paid by the petitioner after disposal of the mutual divorce petition. 2 2025:UHC:4617 7. However, petitioner no.1 has paid the remaining amount i.e. Rs.4,25,000/- by way of two demand drafts i.e. demand draft no.422887 dated 07.05.2025 amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- and demand draft no.422888 dated 07.05.2025 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- which have been handed over by the petitioner no.1 (husband) to the respondent no.3 (wife) in the Court today. Thus, nothing remains to be received by respondent no.3 at the time of disposal of the mutual divorce petition. 8. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to be compounded is non- compoundable. 9. Since the parties have entered into compromise and are living peacefully, this Court is of the opinion that it will be a futile exercise to ask the petitioners to face the criminal prosecution which would ultimately result into the acquittal. 10. 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.” 11. 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 3 2025:UHC:4617 or affect the powers of the Court. But here the Court is invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is far wider than 528 BNSS, 2023. 12. In this view of the matter, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. First Information Report No.0037 of 2024 dated 27.06.2024, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1860, registered with Police Station Ranipokhari, District Dehradun are hereby quashed. Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end. 13. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed accordingly. 14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.06.2025 AK 4