ANURAG BHANDARI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:4238
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528/1160/2026


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Manoj Joshi, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel
for respondent no.3/complainant.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the impugned
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning
order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial
th
Magistrate/5 Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Dehradun in Criminal
Case No.7847 of 2025 under Section 498-
A I.P.C. as well as the entire criminal
proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the dispute in question
emanates from matrimonial discord
between applicant and respondent no.3
are husband and wife respectively. It is
contended that due to certain matrimonial
differences, respondent no.3 lodged an
F.I.R. against the applicant; that,
Investigating Officer after completion of
investigation has submitted chargesheet,
upon which, learned trial court has taken
cognizance against the applicant.
6. It is further submitted that with the
intervention of respectable persons and
family members, the parties have amicably

2026:UHC:4238
resolved all their disputes. The parties
have decided to dissolve their marriage by
mutual consent and have filed a petition
under Section 27 of the Uniform Civil
Code, Uttarakhand. The first motion in the
aforesaid proceedings has already been
completed; that, as per the settlement
arrived at between the parties, the
applicant shall pay a sum of ₹ 14,00,000/-
to respondent no.3 towards full and final
settlement of all claims and disputes
arising between them.
7. The applicants and respondent no.3
are present before the Court through
Video Conferencing and have been duly
identified by their respective counsel. On
being interacted with, respondent no.3
has categorically stated that the
compromise has been entered into
voluntarily, without any coercion or undue
influence; that, the applicant has paid ₹ 5
lacs out of settled amount ₹ 14,00,000/
and the applicant will pay the remaining
amount at the time of second motion of
the proceedings under Section 27 of the
U.C.C.; that, she has no objection if the
criminal proceedings in question are
quashed.
8. Learned State counsel would oppose
the compounding application on the
ground that the offence under Section
498-A I.P.C. is a non-compoundable
offence; however, he does not dispute the
factum of compromise between the
parties.
9. This Court has considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material

2026:UHC:4238
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 purely personal in
nature, having no element of public
interest or adverse societal impact. In view
of the amicable settlement arrived at
between the parties and considering that
the continuance of criminal proceedings
would serve no useful purpose, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the ends
of justice would be met by quashing the
proceedings in exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. 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 amicably settled the matter,
provided that the offences do not have
serious impact on society.
11. 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,

2026:UHC:4238
so as to secure the ends of justice.
12. 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.
13. In the present case, the allegations
stem purely from matrimonial discord
between the husband and wife. The
parties have amicably settled their
dispute; the first motion for mutual
divorce has been filed; substantial part of
the settled amount has already been paid;
and respondent no.3 has unequivocally
stated that she 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.
14. 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.

2026:UHC:4238
Consequently, the present C-528
application stands allowed. The impugned
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning
order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial
th
Magistrate/5 Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Dehradun in Criminal
Case No.7847 of 2025 as well as the entire
criminal proceedings of the criminal case
are hereby quashed in terms of the
compromise arrived at between the
parties.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.



(Alok Mahra, J.)

29.05.2026
Mamta

MA
MTA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b
, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.05.30 15:55:47
+05'30'