SUBHASH SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:4406
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528/1216/2026




Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel for
the applicants.
2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy
A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned
A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Prem Prakash Singh Phartiyal,
learned counsel for respondent
no.2/complainant.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the impugned
chargesheet, cognizance/summoning
order dated 07.10.2024 in Criminal Case
No.676 of 2024 pending in court of
learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate,
Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar
under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C.
and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well
as the entire criminal proceedings of the
aforesaid case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the dispute in
question emanates from matrimonial
discord between parties; that, applicant
no.1, 2 & are respectively husband,
father-in-law and mother in law of
respondent no.2 respectively; that, due
to certain matrimonial differences,
respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against
the applicants; that, Investigating Officer
after completion of investigation has

2026:UHC:4406
submitted chargesheet, upon which,
learned trial court has taken cognizance
against the applicants.
6. It is further submitted that with the
intervention of respectable persons and
family members, the parties have
amicably resolved all their disputes.
They have decided to dissolve their
marriage by mutual consent and have
filed petition under Section 27 of the
Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand. It has
further been agreed between the parties
that, in terms of the
settlement/compromise arrived at
between them, the applicants as well as
respondent no.2 shall withdraw all
cases, complaints, and proceedings
pending against each other before the
competent courts/authorities, in
accordance with law. It has also been
agreed that applicant no.1 shall pay a
sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- to respondent no.2
towards full and final alimony. Learned
counsel further submits that the first
motion proceedings under Section 27 of
the U.C.C. Act have already been
completed, and applicant no.1 has paid
the entire agreed amount of ₹ 7,00,000/-
to respondent no.2 at the time of the first
motion itself.
7. The applicants as well as
respondent no.2 are present before this
Court through Video Conferencing and
have been duly identified by their
respective learned counsel. Upon
interaction with the Court, respondent
no.2 has categorically stated that the

2026:UHC:4406
compromise entered into between the
parties is voluntary in nature and has
been effected without any coercion,
pressure, or undue influence from any
quarter. Respondent no.2 has further
submitted that proceedings under
Section 27 of the U.C.C. have already
been initiated between the parties and
she has received ₹ 7,00,000/- from the
applicant no.1 at the time of first motion
of the proceedings under Section 27 of
the U.C.C andthat she has no objection
if the criminal proceedings in question
are quashed on the basis of the
compromise.
8. This Court has considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
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 personal in nature,
without any element of public interest or
societal impact.
9. 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

2026:UHC:4406
amicably settled the matter, provided
that the offences do not have serious
impact on society.
10. 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, so as to
secure the ends of justice.
11. 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.
12. In the present case, the allegations
stem purely from matrimonial discord.
The parties have amicably settled their
dispute; the first motion for mutual
divorce has been completed and

2026:UHC:4406
respondent no.2 has unequivocally
stated that he 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.
13. 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.
Consequently, the present C-528
application stands allowed. The
impugned chargesheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
07.10.2024 in Criminal Case No.676 of
2024 pending in court of learned Civil
Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur,
District Udham Singh Nagar as well as
the entire criminal proceedings of the
aforesaid case are hereby quashed in
terms of the compromise arrived at
between the parties.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
02.06.2026
Mamta