UKHC010028462020 2026:UHC:5646 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Compounding Application (IA No.608 of 2026) In Criminal Misc Application No.340 of 2020 Dilip Kumar & Anr. --Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Presence:- Ms. Ananya Jain, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Vipul Panuli, learned A.G.A for the State. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J. The present criminal misc. application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the applicants seeking quashing of the impugned cognizance order dated 06.08.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.5269 of 2019, ‘State vs. Saurabh Sharma and others’ under Sections 498- A read with 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and further to quash all the consequential proceedings pursuant to the cognizance order dated 06.08.2019. 2. It is also reported that the applicant no.2, Suruchi Sharma has died. 1 UKHC010028462020 2026:UHC:5646 3. During the pendency of the present Criminal Misc. Application, Compounding Application (IA No. 608 of 2026) has been filed on behalf of the applicants and respondent no. 2. An affidavit has been filed in support of the compounding application on behalf of respondent no. 2/complainant, Swati Saurabh Sharma. In the affidavit, respondent no. 2 has categorically stated that, during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the deponent has now entered into a compromise and has further resolved all the disputes with her husband and the family members of her husband. 4. It is further stated in the affidavit of respondent no.2/complainant that detailed terms and conditions of the compromise have already been entered in the form of agreement on 28.04.2026, the parties have filed a divorce suit on mutual consent before Principal Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, further presented themselves for first motion on 18.05.2026 in a petition preferred for divorce on mutual consent. 5. It is also stated in the affidavit that the husband of the deponent has agreed to pay permanent alimony. It is further stated that the parties to the matrimony have decided to resolve their disputes. Since applicant no. 1 herein is the father-in-law of the deponent, she does not wish to further prosecute applicant no. 1. Accordingly, in 2 UKHC010028462020 2026:UHC:5646 the interest of justice, the cognizance order and the proceedings sought to be challenged in the captioned Criminal Misc. Application may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. On interaction with respondent no. 2/complainant, who is appearing through video conferencing and is duly identified by her counsel, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, she stated that she wants to resolve the matter and that the parties have filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. She further stated that she does not wish to prosecute applicant no. 1 and that the compounding application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings may be quashed. 7. The Court also interacted with applicant no.1, Dilip Kumar, who is appearing through video conferencing and is duly identified by his counsel, Ms. Ananya Jain, learned counsel holding brief for Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate. On such interaction, applicant no.1 also stated that the matter has been resolved and that the compounding application may be allowed and the criminal proceedings may be quashed. 8. Learned State counsel raised an objection that the offence is against society and Section 498-A of IPC is a 3 UKHC010028462020 2026:UHC:5646 non-compoundable offence, hence, the compounding application cannot be allowed. 9. However, in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of “B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another”, (2003) 4 SCC 675, “Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI and another”, (2008) 9 SCC 650 and “Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab”, 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted the compounding of non-compoundable offence. Also, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of “Kedar Singh and three others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others” reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Utt 2275 has in identical circumstances permitted the compounding of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 10. Since the parties have already settled the matter amicably and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid cases, has permitted compounding in such matters, the compounding application deserves to be allowed. 11. Since respondent no. 2/complainant has consented to the compounding of the said offences, the Compounding Application (IA No. 608 of 2026) is hereby allowed. 4 UKHC010028462020 2026:UHC:5646 12. As a consequence thereof, the impugned cognizance order dated 06.08.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.5269 of 2019, ‘State vs. Saurabh Sharma and others’ under Sections 498-A read with 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and other consequential proceedings, if any, pursuant to the cognizance order dated 06.08.2019, are hereby quashed. 13. The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, thus, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Siddhartha Sah, J.) 10.07.2026 Akash 5 AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48 ef73518c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee492 24c891823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH Date: 2026.07.13 10:21:06 +05'30'