CHANDRA PRAKASH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010183932026

2026:UHC:9458
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order with
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

SL.
Date
No.
Signatures

C528/2244/2026


Chandra Prakash
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Sachin Veer Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Mr. Bharat Chandra Paneru, learned
counsel for respondent no.3.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the chargesheet,
summoning order dated 19.12.2020 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sitarganj in
Criminal Case No. 1166 of 2020 under
Section 323, 498-A, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
(F.I.R. No.0188 of 2020) as well as the
entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal
case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the present case arises
out of matrimonial discord; that applicant
and respondent no3 are husband and wife.
Due to certain matrimonial disputes
between them, respondent no.2 lodged a
complaint under Sections 323, 498-A, 504
and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act; that, pursuant thereto,
after completion of investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted the charge-
sheet against the applicant, on which the

UKHC010183932026

2026:UHC:9458
learned trial court took cognizance.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that applicant and the
complainant/respondent no. 3 have now
amicably resolved their dispute and do not
wish to pursue the criminal proceedings
any further as the applicant and
respondent no.3 are now living happily
together. In support thereof, a joint
compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2026),
along with affidavits of the applicant and
the complainant/respondent no.3, has been
filed stating that the complainant do not
wish to prosecute the applicant.
7. The applicant and respondent no.
3/complainant are present through Video
Conferencing and have been duly identified
by their respective counsel. Upon
interaction with the Court, both the
applicant and respondent no. 3 have stated
that they are now living together happily
and are discharging their matrimonial
obligations peacefully. They further submit
that the dispute between them has been
amicably settled, and respondent no. 3 does
not wish to prosecute the applicant any
further.
8. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application, on the ground that the
allegations include an offence under Section
498-A I.P.C., which is non-compoundable
in nature. However, does not dispute the
factum of compromise between the parties
or the filing of the joint compounding
application.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

UKHC010183932026

2026:UHC:9458
10. From the material brought on record,
it transpires that the dispute between the
applicant and respondent no. 3 has arisen
out of matrimonial discord. The parties,
who are husband and wife, are present
before this Court and have been duly
identified by their respective counsel. Upon
interaction, both have unequivocally stated
that they have amicably resolved their
differences and are now residing together
peacefully. A joint compounding application
(IA No. 1 of 2026), supported by their
respective affidavits, has also been filed
wherein respondent no. 3 has categorically
stated that she does not wish to pursue the
criminal proceedings against the applicant.
11. Although the offence under Section
498-A I.P.C. is non-compoundable, it is well
settled that in matrimonial disputes, where
the parties have settled their differences
amicably and are living together peacefully,
the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./522
B.N.S.S., may quash the criminal
proceedings to secure the ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 11.
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10
SCC 303 and Narinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that
criminal proceedings arising out of
matrimonial disputes can be quashed on
the basis of compromise, even if the
offences are non-compoundable, provided
the Court is satisfied that the compromise
is genuine and the continuation of
proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
12. In the present case, this Court is

UKHC010183932026

2026:UHC:9458
satisfied that the compromise between the
parties is voluntary, genuine and without
any coercion. The complainant herself does
not wish to prosecute the applicant any
further. The parties are living together
happily and continuation of the criminal
proceedings would only disturb their
restored matrimonial harmony.
13. In the present case, this Court is
satisfied that the compromise between the
parties is voluntary, genuine and without
any coercion. The complainant herself does
not wish to prosecute the applicant any
further. The parties are living together
happily and continuation of the criminal
proceedings would only disturb their
restored matrimonial harmony.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, as well as the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds
that it is a fit case to exercise inherent
powers to secure the ends of justice.
15. Accordingly, the compounding
application (IA No. 1 of 2026) is allowed.
The chargesheet, summoning order dated
19.12.2020 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Sitarganj in Criminal Case No.
1166 of 2020 as well as the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case
are hereby quashed the applicant.
16. The present C-528 application stands
allowed accordingly.
17. 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=6a812005bebfcf4
6f244f3e584af1449e430ef9
00bf09a6d67ebbd6426713
29b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f
1d9cabfd54852c9e68911c
a8b66dd26690a191648ab5
d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.10.17 10:58:50
+05'30'
MA
MTA
RANI

(Alok Mahra J.)
15.10.2026
Mamta