NAFISA BEGUM vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010040242025

2026:UHC:9968
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C528/834/2026

Abdul Rehman ……… Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand ……… Respondent

With
C528/392/2025

Nafisa Begum ……… Applicant

Versus
……
State Of Uttarakhand Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for
the applicant through Video Conferencing.
2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned A.G.A. and
Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for
the State.
3. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
4. Both the present C-528 applications
arise out of the same criminal proceedings
and involve common questions of fact and
law. Since the parties in both applications
are connected with the same matrimonial
dispute and the relief sought is also
identical, both applications are being heard
and decided together by this common order.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the dispute giving rise to
the present applications emanates from
matrimonial discord between the parties. C-
528 Application No. 834 of 2026 has been
filed by the husband of respondent no. 2,
whereas C-528 Application No. 392 of 2025

UKHC010040242025

2026:UHC:9968
has been filed by the mother-in-law of
respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the
applicants would submit that, owing to
certain matrimonial differences, respondent
no. 2 lodged a complaint against the
applicants, pursuant to which, after
investigation, the police submitted a
chargesheet against both the applicants for
the offences punishable under Sections
498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act. The learned trial court took cognizance
of the aforesaid offences and summoned the
applicants to face trial.
6. By means of the present applications,
the applicants seek quashing of the
chargesheet, summoning/cognizance order
th
dated 24.12.2024 passed by the learned 6
Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division)/Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.
9599 of 2024, as well as the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case,
pending before the said court.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that, during the pendency of
the proceedings, the applicants and
respondent no. 2 have amicably resolved
their matrimonial dispute and have
mutually agreed not to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further. It is further
submitted that applicant no. 3, Abdul
Rehman, and respondent no. 2, being
husband and wife, have mutually decided
to dissolve their matrimonial relationship
and live separately; that, in this regard,
they have entered into a written settlement
agreement and have also filed a joint

UKHC010040242025

2026:UHC:9968
compounding application along with their
respective affidavits.
8. It is further submitted that, in terms
of the settlement agreement, applicant
Abdul Rehman has agreed to pay a sum of
₹ 10,00,000/- to respondent no. 2 towards
permanent alimony. Out of the aforesaid
amount, a demand draft of ₹ 5,00,000/- has
already been handed over to respondent no.
2, while the remaining amount of
₹ 5,00,000/- shall be paid in two
instalments, i.e., ₹ 2,50,000/- at the time of
the first motion and the remaining
₹ 2,50,000/- at the time of the second
motion of the divorce proceedings under the
Uniform Civil Code (UCC). It has further
been agreed between the parties that all
cases instituted by them against each other
shall be withdrawn in accordance with law
and that neither party shall raise any
further claim or allegation against the other
in respect of the disputes so settled.
Learned counsel would further submit that
applicant Abdul Rehman is presently
residing in Dubai and, therefore, his
mother, who is the applicant in C-528
Application No. 392 of 2025, is holding a
power of attorney on his behalf to pursue
the present case.
9. The applicant in C-528 No.392 of
2025 and respondent no. 2 are present in
person before this Court and have been
duly identified by their respective counsel.
Upon interaction with the parties,
respondent no. 2 has affirmed the terms
and conditions of the settlement agreement
and categorically stated that the
compromise has been entered into

UKHC010040242025

2026:UHC:9968
voluntarily, without any pressure, coercion
or undue influence. She has further
acknowledged receipt of 5,00,000/- from
applicant Abdul Rehman towards the
agreed permanent alimony and expressed
her willingness not to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further.
10. Learned State counsel would oppose
the applications on the ground that the
offences alleged against the applicants are
non-compoundable in nature. However, he
does not dispute the factum of settlement
arrived at between the parties or the filing
of the joint compounding applications.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
13. From the material available on record,
it transpires that the criminal proceedings
in question have arisen out of matrimonial
discord between the parties. It further
transpires that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes and have mutually
decided to part ways and live separately.
The husband and wife are present before
this Court and have been duly identified by
their respective counsel. Upon interaction,
respondent no. 2 has unequivocally
affirmed the settlement agreement and
expressed her desire not to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the
applicants. The settlement agreement also
records the terms regarding payment of
permanent alimony and withdrawal of the
cases instituted by the parties against each
other. A joint compounding application,
supported by the affidavits of the parties,

UKHC010040242025

2026:UHC:9968
has also been placed on record.
14. Although the offences alleged against
the applicants are non-compoundable in
nature, the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., is
distinct from the statutory power of
compounding offences. This Court, in
exercise of its inherent powers, may quash
criminal proceedings arising out of
matrimonial disputes where the parties
have amicably settled their differences,
provided that the nature of the offences, the
circumstances of the case and the
genuineness of the settlement justify such
exercise of jurisdiction.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
303, and Narinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, has laid down
the principles governing the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal
proceedings on the basis of a settlement,
even in cases involving non-compoundable
offences. It has been held that, in
appropriate cases involving predominantly
private or matrimonial disputes, the
proceedings may be quashed where the
possibility of conviction is remote and
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would not serve any meaningful purpose.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this Court finds that the
dispute is essentially matrimonial in nature
and the parties have voluntarily resolved
their differences. Respondent no. 2, who is
the complainant and the wife of applicant
Abdul Rehman, is present before this Court

UKHC010040242025

2026:UHC:9968
and has expressly consented to the
settlement and stated that she does not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
any further. The settlement appears to be
voluntary, genuine and free from any
coercion or undue influence. Having regard
to the nature of the dispute and the
settlement arrived at between the parties,
this Court is of the considered view that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would serve no fruitful purpose and would
rather amount to an abuse of the process of
the Court. It is, therefore, a fit case for
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., to
secure the ends of justice.
17. Accordingly, both the C-528
applications are allowed. Consequently, the
chargesheet, summoning/cognizance order
th
dated 24.12.2024 passed by the learned 6
Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division)/Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.
9599 of 2024, as well as the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case,
pending before the said court, are hereby
quashed qua the applicants.
18. The joint compounding applications
(IA Nos. 1 and 4 of 2026) stand disposed of
accordingly.
19. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
MAMTA
RANI



(Alok Mahra, J.)
31.10.2026

Mamta


Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e43
0ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e689
11ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.11.03 11:22:26 +05'30'