No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-528 No. 816 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with the prayer to set-aside and quash the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1587 of 2025, State Vs. Azeem and Another, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant no.1 and Section 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 and 376 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant no.2, pending in the court of learned 6th Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ACJM, Dehradun. 5. Now, Compounding Application is filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offences between the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise. 7. Parties are present before this Court and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Parties have also filed their respective affidavits stating the facts of compromise between them. 8. The Court interacted with the parties. Upon interaction, respondent no. 2 submits she has amicably settled her dispute with the applicants and she does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicants. It is further submitted that applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are now living together for one and a half years. She further submits that she lodged an FIR due to misunderstanding and under the influence of some family members and no such incident ever happened, as narrated in the FIR. 9. At this stage, learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non- compoundable. 10. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page 675, has permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences with the permission of Court. 11. Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of its judgments, has observed that in cases where because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings as continuation of the same would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused. 12. Following the aforesaid ratio, the present compounding application is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1587 of 2025, State Vs. Azeem and Another, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant no.1 and Section 323, 498- A, 504 and 506 and 376 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against applicant no.2, pending in the court of learned 6th Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ACJM, Dehradun, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. FIR and charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto stand quashed. 13. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Alok Mahra J.) 27.04.2026 Ujjwal