Rohit & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Present C528 application has been filed by the applicants along with the joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) for quashing the charge-sheet dated 12.03.2025; cognizance/summoning order dated 19.05.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.189 of 2025, State vs. Rohit & others, under Sections 498-A & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable.

Applicant no.1-Rohit (husband), applicant no.2-Tejram Singh @ Tejram(father-in-law), applicant no.3-Sukhlesh (mother-in-law), applicant no.4-Neelam (sister-in-law) and respondent no.2-Babita Saini (wife) are present in the Court (all appeared through V.C.). being duly identified by their respective counsel.

Along with the compounding application, a supplementary affidavit has been filed. In the supplementary affidavit, it is stated that applicant no. 1, Rohit, and respondent no. 2, Smt. Babita Saini, have filed a mutual divorce petition before the Court of the Family Judge, Kashipur, in which the date for the first motion was 16.10.2025 and the date for the second motion is fixed on 20.04.2026. At the time of filing the mutual divorce petition, it was agreed between the parties that applicant no. 1 (husband) shall pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs towards permanent alimony to respondent no. 2 (wife), out of which Rs. 1 lakh has already been paid at the time of filing of the mutual divorce petition. A further sum of Rs. 1 lakh will be paid at the time of recording of evidence, and the remaining Rs. 1 lakh will be paid at the time of arguments. On the basis of the aforesaid mutual divorce and amicable settlement arrived at between the parties to separate, the applicants and respondent no. 2 have resolved their dispute and do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings.

Upon interaction, respondent no. 2, Babita Saini, made a statement before the Court that the settlement has been arrived at in terms of the compromise mentioned in the mutual divorce petition, and the compromise has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. She admits that she has received Rs. 1 lakh and that there is a settlement to pay Rs. 3 lakhs as permanent alimony to her by applicant no. 1, who is her husband.

Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to ask the applicants to appear before the trial court as accused to face the trial.

So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in this regard in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held as below: -

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”

Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 582 of the BNSS, 2023. Further the dispute sought to be resolve is a matrimonial dispute which should be put to an end.

Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings after settlement. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the cognizance/ summoning order dated 19.05.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.189 of 2025, State vs. Rohit & others, under Sections 498-A & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed. FIR dated 10.10.2024 and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto also stand quashed.

Present criminal misc. application thus stands allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly.