ZUBEDA BEGAM AND ORS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010029942026
2026:UHC:10117
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
with Signatures
C528/304/2026
Zubeda Begam And Ors
--Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned
counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned
A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Manpreet Kaur, learned
counsel for respondent no. 2.
2. The present application under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the “BNSS”), has been filed
by the applicants seeking quashing of
the charge-sheet dated 31.08.2025, the
summoning and cognizance order dated
19.11.2025, as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 765 of
2025, arising out of FIR No. 205 of 2025,
registered at Police Station Jaspur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, for the
offences punishable under Sections 85,
115(2), 351(2), 352 and 123 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, pending before the Court of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur,
District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. Along with the present application,
a compounding application, being I.A.
No. 01 of 2026, has also been filed. The
said application bears the signatures of
the parties and has been duly identified
by their respective learned counsel. The
application is supported by affidavits of
the parties, wherein it has been stated
that they have amicably settled their
UKHC010029942026
2026:UHC:10117
dispute and that respondent nos. 2 and
3 do not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further.
4. The applicants and respondent no.
2 are present before this Court and have
been duly identified by their respective
learned counsel.
5. This Court interacted with the
parties. Upon such interaction, both
parties submitted that they have
amicably settled their disputes and do
not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further.
6. Learned State Counsel opposed the
compounding application.
7. Upon interaction with this Court,
respondent no. 2 reiterated that the
dispute has been amicably settled
between the parties and that they no
longer wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further.
8. Upon interacting with the parties
and considering the material available
on record, this Court is satisfied that the
settlement has been arrived at
voluntarily, without any coercion,
pressure or undue influence.
Respondent no. 2 has unequivocally
expressed his intention not to pursue
the criminal proceedings any further.
9. Having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the dispute, the
allegations levelled, the fact that the
parties have amicably settled their
differences, and the voluntary nature of
the settlement, this Court has
considered whether continuation of the
criminal proceedings would serve any
useful purpose or whether exercise of
the inherent jurisdiction under Section
528 of the BNSS is warranted in the
interests of justice.
10. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ,
(2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v.
State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466; and
UKHC010029942026
2026:UHC:10117
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi
Narayan , (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has elucidated the
principles governing the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction for quashing
criminal proceedings on the basis of a
compromise between the parties. While
exercising such jurisdiction, the Court is
required to consider the nature and
gravity of the offences, the
circumstances in which the dispute
arose, and whether quashing of the
proceedings would secure the ends of
justice. The mere fact that the parties
have entered into a settlement does not,
by itself, warrant quashing of criminal
proceedings. The Court must
independently assess the facts and
circumstances of each case.
11. In view of the settlement arrived at
between the parties, the statements
made by respondent nos. 2 and 3 before
this Court, and the circumstances
placed on record, this Court is satisfied
that continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no fruitful
purpose and would not advance the ends
of justice. Accordingly, this Court finds it
appropriate to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
BNSS to secure the ends of justice.
12. Accordingly, the compounding
application, being I.A. No. 01 of 2026, is
allowed. Consequently, in exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court
under Section 528 of the BNSS, the
charge-sheet dated 31.08.2025, the
summoning and cognizance order dated
19.11.2025, and the entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No. 765 of 2025,
arising out of FIR No. 205 of 2025,
registered at Police Station Jaspur,
District Udham Singh Nagar, pending
before the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham
UKHC010029942026
2026:UHC:10117
Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.
13. Accordingly, the present criminal
miscellaneous application under Section
528 of the BNSS stands disposed of in
the above terms.
14. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
03-11-2026
SB
SHIKSHA
BINJOLA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.11.04 10:42:48 +05'30'