2026:UHC:4252 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1168/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Sachin Veer Singh proxy counsel for Mr. Prasanna Karnatak, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat as well as entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.30 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 376(3) and 506 I.P.C. r/w Section 5(1)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pending before the court of learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.2 alleging therein that the applicant had established physical relations with her during the last six months and, subsequently, when the informant proposed marriage, the applicant refused to marry her and allegedly extended threats of dire consequences. It was further alleged that the applicant threatened the 2026:UHC:4252 informant that, in case she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would defame and ruin her reputation. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet against the present applicant, whereupon the learned trial court took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that when the matter was earlier taken up before the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.07.2025 in connection with the compounding application preferred by the mother of the applicant and the mother of respondent no.2, it was specifically brought to the notice of this Court that both the applicant and respondent no.2 had mutually agreed to solemnize their marriage, whereupon this Court stayed further proceedings of the Sessions Trial. It is further submitted that thereafter the applicant and respondent no.2 solemnized their marriage on 30.06.2025 after attaining the age of majority and are presently residing together peacefully as husband and wife. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful or fruitful purpose and would unnecessarily disturb their matrimonial life. 7. The applicant and respondent no.2 are present before this Court through Video Conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Upon being interacted with, respondent no.2 has categorically stated that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, out of her own free will and without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence from any quarter. She has further affirmed that she 2026:UHC:4252 has solemnized marriage with the applicant and is living with him happily as his legally wedded wife. Respondent no.2 has also stated that she has no objection if the criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. are quashed by this Court. 8. Learned State counsel would oppose the compounding application on the ground that the offences alleged against the applicant are non-compoundable in nature under Section 320 Cr.P.C.; however, he does not dispute the factum of compromise and marriage between the parties. 9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the dispute between the parties emanates from a personal and private relationship. The parties have now amicably settled their disputes and have entered into a matrimonial relationship by solemnizing marriage with each other. Respondent no.2, who is the victim/informant, has appeared before this Court and has unequivocally stated that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. 10. It is well settled that though offences which are non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot ordinarily be compounded, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, particularly where the dispute is overwhelmingly private and personal in nature and continuation of proceedings would amount to sheer futility. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this 2026:UHC:4252 Court is satisfied that the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and their subsequent marriage, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would only adversely affect their peaceful matrimonial life. 11. The legal position with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise is no longer res integra. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the dispute is essentially private and personal in nature and the parties have amicably settled the matter, provided that the offences do not have serious impact on society. 12. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down broad guidelines for quashing on the basis of compromise and observed that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of matrimonial or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire dispute, so as to secure the ends of justice. 13. Further, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes and family matters, which have been amicably settled, can be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, unless the offences are heinous and of serious mental depravity. More recently, in Parbatbhai 2026:UHC:4252 Aahir v. State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the principles governing exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the High Court must evaluate whether continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and whether quashing would secure the ends of justice. 14. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the compounding application is allowed. Consequently, the present C-528 application stands allowed. The impugned chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat as well as entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.30 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 376(3) and 506 I.P.C. r/w Section 5(1)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pending before the court of learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the criminal case are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 29.05.2026 Mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e 584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebb d642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabf d54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a1 91648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.30 15:57:45 +05'30'