MOHD IRSHAD vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010198502026

2026:UHC:10262
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C528/2486/2026


Mohd Irshad
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Sachin Veer Singh, learned
counsel for the applicants.
2. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Mr. Aamir Malik, learned counsel
for respondent no.3.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the
chargesheet, summoning order dated
st
21.07.2025 passed by learned 1 Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Dehradun in Criminal Case No.5167 of
2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 498-A of the I.P.C.
and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as
well as the 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 no.1 and respondent no.3 are
husband and wife and applicant no.3 are

UKHC010198502026

2026:UHC:10262
elder brother-in-law of the respondent
no.3; that, due to certain matrimonial
disputes between them, respondent no.3
lodged a complaint against the
applicants; that, pursuant thereto, after
completion of investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted the
charge-sheet against the applicants, on
which the learned trial court took
cognizance.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the applicants and
respondent no. 3/complainant have
amicably resolved their dispute and do
not wish to pursue the criminal
proceedings any further. He would
further submit that applicant no. 1 and
respondent no. 3, being husband and
wife, have decided to live separately and
have executed an agreement in this
regard. Therefore, respondent no. 3 does
not wish to pursue the present
proceedings against the applicants. In
support of the aforesaid submissions, a
joint compounding application (IA No. 1
of 2026), along with the affidavits of the
applicants and respondent no.
2/complainant, has been filed, stating
that respondent no. 2 does not wish to
prosecute the applicants any further.
7. The applicant and respondent no.
2/complainant are present before the
Court through Video Conferencing and
have been duly identified by their
respective counsel. Upon interaction with
the Court, both parties have stated that

UKHC010198502026

2026:UHC:10262
they have mutually decided to live
separately and dissolve their marriage by
mutual consent. They have further
stated that, in this regard, the first
motion under the Uniform Civil Code
(U.C.C.) has already been completed.
8. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application, on the ground that the
allegations include the offences which
are 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.
10. From the material brought on
record, it transpires that the dispute
between the applicants 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 separately from
each other. 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 applicants.
11. Although the offences alleged
against the applicants are non-

UKHC010198502026

2026:UHC:10262
compoundable in nature, it is well
settled that this Court, in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the
B.N.S.S., is empowered to quash
criminal proceedings arising out of
matrimonial disputes on the basis of an
amicable settlement between the parties,
notwithstanding the bar under Section
320 Cr.P.C., where such exercise is
necessary to secure the ends of justice
and prevent abuse of the process of the
Court. In the present case, the parties
have amicably resolved their matrimonial
differences, have mutually agreed to
dissolve their marriage by way of divorce,
and the first motion proceedings under
the Uniform Civil Code (U.C.C.) have also
been completed.
12. 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
that criminal proceedings involving
offences of a predominantly private
nature, particularly those arising out of
matrimonial disputes, may be quashed
on the basis of a genuine and voluntary
compromise between the parties, even
where the offences are non-
compoundable, provided that the Court
is satisfied that the settlement is genuine
and that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no useful
purpose and would not advance the
cause of justice.

UKHC010198502026

2026:UHC:10262
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. In the present
case, this Court is satisfied that the
compromise between the parties is
voluntary, genuine and without any
coercion, therefore, no fruitful purpose
would be served to keep the criminal
proceedings pending against the
applicants.
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
st
dated 21.07.2025 passed by learned 1
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Dehradun in Criminal Case No.5167 of
2025as well as the entire proceedings of
the aforesaid criminal case are hereby
quashed.
16. The present C-528 application
stands allowed accordingly.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of accordingly.


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
244f3e584af1449e430ef900b
f09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d
9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b6
6dd26690a191648ab5d8dd0
04ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.11.05 17:27:29
+05'30'

(Alok Mahra, J.)
04.11.2026
Mamta