UKHC010040932024 2026:UHC:6979 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Compounding Application (IA No.3 of 2026) In Criminal Misc Application No.510 of 2024 Pramod Bhatt --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Presence:- Ms. Gurbani Singh (through V.C.) with Ms. Shweta Tiwari, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned A.G.A assisted by Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondent no.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J. The present criminal misc. application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Doiwala, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.20 of 2024, ‘State of Uttarakhand vs. Pramod Bhatt’ under Sections 498-A/377/506 of I.P.C. as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.20 of 2024. 2. During the pendency of the present Criminal Misc. Application, Compounding Application (IA No.3 of 1 UKHC010040932024 2026:UHC:6979 2026) has been filed on behalf of the applicant and respondent no.2. An affidavit has been filed in support of the compounding application on behalf of respondent no. 2, Vandana Bhatt. In the affidavit, respondent no.2 has categorically stated that, during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the applicant and the respondent no.2 has now been able to resolve their dispute and further they have decided to part their ways and further the terms and conditions of the settlement has duly been noted down in the form of a marital settlement agreement dated 11.05.2026. It the affidavit, it is further stated that the parties have decided that they will withdraw the divorce suit and thereafter will file a suit for divorce on the basis of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act with Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code, 2024. In the affidavit, it is also stated that in the terms of the agreement executed between the parties, a sum of Rs.1.3 crores have been paid by the applicant to the respondent no.2. It is also stated that the applicant and the respondent no.2 have presented themselves on 13.05.2026 before the Principal Judge, Family Court and pressed the first motion and thereafter, the next date has been fixed on 18.11.2026 and it has lastly been stated that the answering respondent does not want to further 2 UKHC010040932024 2026:UHC:6979 prosecute the applicant and hence, is submitting the instant affidavit in support of the compounding application with a prayer that the charge-sheet, cognizance order and proceedings challenged in the captioned criminal misc. application be quashed. 3. The Court interacted with the respondent no.2, who is appearing through V.C. She reiterated the contents of the affidavit and states that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the compounding application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings be quashed. 4. The Court also interacted with the applicant, who is also appearing through VC and he too makes the similar submissions like the respondent no.2. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and interacting with the applicant and the respondent no.2, it is clear that the parties have resolved their disputes amicably, and the respondent no.2 does not wish to prosecute the applicant any further and is desirous of putting a quietus to the matter. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to let the matter go to rest. 6. Learned State counsel raised an objection that the offence is against society and Section 498-A of IPC is a non-compoundable offence, hence, the compounding 3 UKHC010040932024 2026:UHC:6979 application cannot be allowed. 7. However, in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of “B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another”, (2003) 4 SCC 675, “Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and another”, (2008) 9 SCC 650 and “Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab”, 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted the compounding of non-compoundable offence. Also, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of “Kedar Singh and three others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others” reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Utt 2275 has in identical circumstances permitted the compounding of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 8. Since the parties have already settled the matter amicably and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid cases, has permitted compounding in such matters, the compounding application deserves to be allowed. 9. Since respondent no.2 has consented to the compounding of the said offences, the Compounding Application (IA No.3 of 2026) is hereby allowed. 10. As a consequence thereof, the impugned summoning order dated 25.01.2024 passed by learned 4 UKHC010040932024 2026:UHC:6979 Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Doiwala, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.20 of 2024, ‘State of Uttarakhand vs. Pramod Bhatt’ under Sections 498- A/377/506 of I.P.C. as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.20 of 2024, are hereby quashed. 11. The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, thus, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Siddhartha Sah, J.) 06.08.2026 Akash 5