2026:UHC:4406 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1216/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Prem Prakash Singh Phartiyal, 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 07.10.2024 in Criminal Case No.676 of 2024 pending in court of learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the dispute in question emanates from matrimonial discord between parties; that, applicant no.1, 2 & are respectively husband, father-in-law and mother in law of respondent no.2 respectively; that, due to certain matrimonial differences, respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants; that, Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has 2026:UHC:4406 submitted chargesheet, upon which, learned trial court has taken cognizance against the applicants. 6. It is further submitted that with the intervention of respectable persons and family members, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes. They have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and have filed petition under Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand. It has further been agreed between the parties that, in terms of the settlement/compromise arrived at between them, the applicants as well as respondent no.2 shall withdraw all cases, complaints, and proceedings pending against each other before the competent courts/authorities, in accordance with law. It has also been agreed that applicant no.1 shall pay a sum of ₹7,00,000/- to respondent no.2 towards full and final alimony. Learned counsel further submits that the first motion proceedings under Section 27 of the U.C.C. Act have already been completed, and applicant no.1 has paid the entire agreed amount of ₹7,00,000/- to respondent no.2 at the time of the first motion itself. 7. The applicants as well as respondent no.2 are present before this Court through Video Conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel. Upon interaction with the Court, respondent no.2 has categorically stated that the 2026:UHC:4406 compromise entered into between the parties is voluntary in nature and has been effected without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence from any quarter. Respondent no.2 has further submitted that proceedings under Section 27 of the U.C.C. have already been initiated between the parties and she has received ₹7,00,000/- from the applicant no.1 at the time of first motion of the proceedings under Section 27 of the U.C.C andthat she has no objection if the criminal proceedings in question are quashed on the basis of the compromise. 8. This Court has considered the submissions of 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 personal in nature, without any element of public interest or societal impact. 9. 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 2026:UHC:4406 amicably settled the matter, provided that the offences do not have serious impact on society. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. In the present case, the allegations stem purely from matrimonial discord. The parties have amicably settled their dispute; the first motion for mutual divorce has been completed and 2026:UHC:4406 respondent no.2 has unequivocally stated that he 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. 13. 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 07.10.2024 in Criminal Case No.676 of 2024 pending in court of learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.06.2026 Mamta