Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9021 (UTT)

AKANSHA GOEL AND ORS v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

C528/1579/2026 · 2026-07-23

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010127522026 2026:UHC:6293 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010127522026 C528/1579/2026 Akansha Goel And Ors --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand and another --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mrs. Meenaksi Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The instant petition is preferred under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 on behalf of the applicants namely Akansha Goel D/o Manoj Goel, Subhav Goel, S/o Manoj Goel, Manoj Goel, S/o Narendra Prakash Goel and Sadhna Goel @ Sadhna Rani Goel, W/o Manoj Goel for quashing of the proceeding of Criminal Case No.13 of 2026 arising out of FIR dated 14.05.2025 bearing FIR No. 0121 of 2025, registered at Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, UKHC010127522026 2026:UHC:6293 Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar wherein on all the applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 85 and 118(1) of BNS 2023. The dispute is in fact arising out of matrimonial discord in between the applicant no.2 and the respondent no.2, due to which and both of them are living separately since 2023. 5. The petition is filed along with the compounding application, i.e., IA No. 1 of 2026 supported with the affidavits of all the applicants and the respondent no.2/complainant with this contention that now the parties have settled their disputes to get permanent separation by way of mutual consent and towards permanent alimony, it is also agreed that the applicant no. 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (twenty lakhs) to the respondent no.2/wife. It is further contended that the total amount towards the permanent alimony of Rs. 20,00,000/- (twenty lakhs) by way of demand draft is handed over to a Mediator namely Sachin Goel to whom both the parties trust. 6. All the applicants and respondent no. 2/complainant are present and identified by their respective counsels. The complainant UKHC010127522026 2026:UHC:6293 who is present along with her brother submits that since they have settled the dispute to get permanent separation by way of seeking divorce through a mutual consent, therefore, the proceedings be closed. 7. On the other side, Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma, learned AGA submits that since the dispute arising out of a matrimonial discord and now the parties have settled their disputes to get divorce by way of mutual consent, therefore, in such an eventuality to continue the proceedings is completely a futile exercise. 8. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the terms and conditions of amicable settlement reflected from the compounding application and the fact that the entire amount towards the permanent alimony of Rs. 20,00,000/- (twenty lakhs) through a demand draft is already handed over to a mediator namely Sachin Goel to whom both the parties trust, this Court is of the view that the present petition and as well as the compounding application deserve to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the present petition as well as the compounding application are allowed and the entire proceedings of UKHC010127522026 2026:UHC:6293 Criminal Case No.13 of 2026 State vs. Akansha Goel and others pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed. 10. It is made clear that both, the applicant no.2 and respondent no.2 are directed to present divorce petition by way of mutual consent before the appropriate Court within 15 days from today, and thereafter Family Court proceed and expedite the divorce proceedings positively within 15 days. 11. It is further made clear that the concerned court will not compel the parties to complete the statutory period of separation since both of them are living separately since 2023. 12. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 23-07-2026 Nahid