2026:UHC:4417 . No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1206/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Chandramauli Shah, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.622 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the court of the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the dispute in question emanates from matrimonial discord between applicant and respondent no.2 are husband and wife respectively. It is contended that due to certain matrimonial differences, respondent no.2 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:4417 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. Therefore, a compounding application along with affidavit of the applicant and respondent no.3 has been filed by the parties to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise. 7. The applicant and respondent no.2 are present before the Court through Video Conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. On being interacted with, respondent no.2 has categorically stated that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence; 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 certain offences are 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 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 2026:UHC:4417 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, 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 2026:UHC:4417 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; 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. Consequently, the present C-528 application stands allowed. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.622 of 2022 pending before the court of the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar 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.) 02.06.2026 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=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3 e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67e bbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cab fd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690 a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.03 16:16:43 +05'30'