SANJAY KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:4252
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528/1168/2025


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Mr. Sachin Veer Singh proxy counsel
for Mr. Prasanna Karnatak, 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 19.06.2023 passed by the learned
Special Sessions Judge, Champawat as well
as entire proceedings of Special Sessions
Trial No.30 of 2023 for the offence
punishable under Sections 376(3) and 506
I.P.C. r/w Section 5(1)/6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
pending before the court of learned Special
Sessions Judge, Champawat as well as the
entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid
case in terms of the compromise arrived at
between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the impugned F.I.R. was
lodged by respondent no.2 alleging therein
that the applicant had established physical
relations with her during the last six
months and, subsequently, when the
informant proposed marriage, the applicant
refused to marry her and allegedly extended
threats of dire consequences. It was further
alleged that the applicant threatened the

2026:UHC:4252
informant that, in case she disclosed the
incident to anyone, he would defame and
ruin her reputation. Upon completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted the chargesheet against the
present applicant, whereupon the learned
trial court took cognizance and summoned
the applicant to face trial.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that when the matter
was earlier taken up before the Coordinate
Bench of this Court on 18.07.2025 in
connection with the compounding
application preferred by the mother of the
applicant and the mother of respondent
no.2, it was specifically brought to the
notice of this Court that both the applicant
and respondent no.2 had mutually agreed
to solemnize their marriage, whereupon this
Court stayed further proceedings of the
Sessions Trial. It is further submitted that
thereafter the applicant and respondent
no.2 solemnized their marriage on
30.06.2025 after attaining the age of
majority and are presently residing together
peacefully as husband and wife. Therefore,
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would serve no useful or fruitful purpose
and would unnecessarily disturb their
matrimonial life.
7. The applicant and respondent no.2 are
present before this Court through Video
Conferencing and have been duly identified
by their respective learned counsel. Upon
being interacted with, respondent no.2 has
categorically stated that the compromise
has been entered into voluntarily, out of her
own free will and without any coercion,
pressure, or undue influence from any
quarter. She has further affirmed that she

2026:UHC:4252
has solemnized marriage with the applicant
and is living with him happily as his legally
wedded wife. Respondent no.2 has also
stated that she has no objection if the
criminal proceedings arising out of the
impugned F.I.R. are quashed by this Court.
8. Learned State counsel would oppose
the compounding application on the ground
that the offences alleged against the
applicant are non-compoundable in nature
under Section 320 Cr.P.C.; however, he
does not dispute the factum of compromise
and marriage between the parties.
9. This Court has considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material
available on record. Admittedly, the dispute
between the parties emanates from a
personal and private relationship. The
parties have now amicably settled their
disputes and have entered into a
matrimonial relationship by solemnizing
marriage with each other. Respondent no.2,
who is the victim/informant, has appeared
before this Court and has unequivocally
stated that she does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings any further.
10. It is well settled that though offences
which are non-compoundable under Section
320 Cr.P.C. cannot ordinarily be
compounded, the High Court, in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings in
order to secure the ends of justice or to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court,
particularly where the dispute is
overwhelmingly private and personal in
nature and continuation of proceedings
would amount to sheer futility. In the facts
and circumstances of the present case, this

2026:UHC:4252
Court is satisfied that the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties
and their subsequent marriage, therefore,
continuation of the criminal proceedings
would only adversely affect their peaceful
matrimonial life.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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

2026:UHC:4252
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.
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. Consequently, the
present C-528 application stands allowed.
The impugned chargesheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
19.06.2023 passed by the learned Special
Sessions Judge, Champawat as well as
entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial
No.30 of 2023 for the offence punishable
under Sections 376(3) and 506 I.P.C. r/w
Section 5(1)/6 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pending
before the court of learned Special Sessions
Judge, Champawat 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.



Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e
584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebb
d642671329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabf
d54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a1
91648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.05.30 15:57:45 +05'30'
MAMT
A RANI
(Alok Mahra, J.)

29.05.2026
Mamta