2026:UHC:4238 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1160/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Manoj Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3/complainant. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/5th Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Criminal Case No.7847 of 2025 under Section 498- A I.P.C. as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the dispute in question emanates from matrimonial discord between applicant and respondent no.3 are husband and wife respectively. It is contended that due to certain matrimonial differences, respondent no.3 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant; that, Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has submitted chargesheet, upon which, learned trial court has taken cognizance against the applicant. 6. It is further submitted that with the intervention of respectable persons and family members, the parties have amicably 2026:UHC:4238 resolved all their disputes. The parties have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and have filed a petition under Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand. The first motion in the aforesaid proceedings has already been completed; that, as per the settlement arrived at between the parties, the applicant shall pay a sum of ₹14,00,000/- to respondent no.3 towards full and final settlement of all claims and disputes arising between them. 7. The applicants and respondent no.3 are present before the Court through Video Conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. On being interacted with, respondent no.3 has categorically stated that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence; that, the applicant has paid ₹5 lacs out of settled amount ₹14,00,000/ and the applicant will pay the remaining amount at the time of second motion of the proceedings under Section 27 of the U.C.C.; that, she has no objection if the criminal proceedings in question are quashed. 8. Learned State counsel would oppose the compounding application on the ground that the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is a non-compoundable offence; however, he does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties. 9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 2026:UHC:4238 available on record. Though certain offences are non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the dispute admittedly arises out of a matrimonial relationship and is purely personal in nature, having no element of public interest or adverse societal impact. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and considering that the continuance of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by quashing the proceedings in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. 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. 11. 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, 2026:UHC:4238 so as to secure the ends of justice. 12. 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 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. 13. In the present case, the allegations stem purely from matrimonial discord between the husband and wife. The parties have amicably settled their dispute; the first motion for mutual divorce has been filed; substantial part of the settled amount has already been paid; and respondent no.3 has unequivocally stated that she has no objection to quashing of the proceedings. There is no allegation of any heinous offence, nor is there any element affecting society at large. Continuation of criminal proceedings, in such circumstances, would serve no fruitful purpose. 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. 2026:UHC:4238 Consequently, the present C-528 application stands allowed. The impugned chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/5th Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Criminal Case No.7847 of 2025 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 MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900 bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b , postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.30 15:55:47 +05'30'