High Court · 2026

Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Mr. Tijil Gangwar, proxy counsel for Mr. Harsh Taneja, respondent no.2. learned counsel Present C-528 application has been 4. filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Section 80(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of F.I.R. No. 239 of 2024, presently pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel the applicant 5. would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.2, alleging therein that the marriage of the applicant with the daughter of respondent no.2 (since deceased) was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the family members on applicant and his the marriage, account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. received complainant

6. It is further alleged that on 19.09.2024, information through a phone call that his daughter had died and that her death had allegedly been caused due to consumption of poison. On the basis of the said allegations, the present F.I.R. was lodged and after completion of Investigating Officer investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against applicant, upon which the learned trial court took cognizance and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Learned counsel

7. the applicant would further submit that after committal of the case, the charges have already been framed and the trial has commenced. The father and the brother of the deceased have been examined before the trial court as PW-1 and PW-2, and in their statements they have not supported the prosecution case and have denied the allegations made in the F.I.R.

8. It is further submitted that the parties have now amicably settled their dispute and do not wish the criminal to pursue proceedings any further. In this regard, a joint compounding application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) duly supported by the affidavits of the applicant as well as respondent no.2 has been filed before this Court stating that the dispute has been resolved amicably and that the complainant does not prosecute the applicant any further. intend Learned counsel would also submit 9. that the applicant is presently in judicial custody in connection with the present case and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

10. The respondent no.2 is present in person before the Court and has been duly identified by his learned counsel. Upon interaction with the Court, respondent no.2 has categorically stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicant any further. He has further stated that he has no objection if the criminal proceedings against the applicant are quashed. the ground

11. Learned State Counsel opposes the application on allegations pertain to serious offences which are non-compoundable in nature. However, he does not dispute factum of compromise between the parties nor the filing of the joint compounding application supported by their affidavits.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. From the material placed before this Court, it transpires that the dispute between the parties arose out of a matrimonial discord. It is also evident that the material witnesses, namely the father and brother of the deceased, who are the informant and close relatives of the deceased, have already been examined before the trial court and they have not supported the prosecution version.

13. In their statements before the trial court, the said witnesses have not attributed any specific role connection with the alleged harassment or the applicant prosecution cruelty for dowry, nor have they supported circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. regarding It is true that the offences alleged in the 14. present case are non-compoundable nature. However, it is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the Court essentially of a private or personal nature criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. is satisfied that the dispute continuation in exercise of

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings jurisdiction where the dispute inherent is overwhelmingly the parties between personal or matrimonial in nature and the parties have resolved their dispute amicably, provided that such exercise of power would secure the ends of justice. Similarly, in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise and held that the Court must consider whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile and would not serve the ends of justice.

16. Further, in Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude and may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, having regard to the nature of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case.

17. In the present case, this Court finds that the informant himself has appeared before the Court and has unequivocally stated that he has settled the dispute with the applicant and does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings. Moreover, the principal prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial court and have not supported the prosecution case, thereby substratum of the prosecution case. substantially weakening

18. In such circumstances, the possibility of the prosecution securing a conviction against the applicant appears to be remote and bleak, and therefore continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

19. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the dispute between the parties, the statements of the material witnesses recorded before the trial court, and the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

20. Accordingly, application (I.A. No.1 of 2026) is allowed. compounding

21. Consequently, the charge-sheet as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 80(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arising out of F.I.R. No.239 of 2024, pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, along with the arising entire therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. proceedings criminal

22. The applicant is stated to be in judicial custody in connection with the present case. He shall be released forthwith as per law, if not required in any other case.

23. The present C-528 application accordingly, allowed. is,

24. Pending applications, stand disposed of. if any, shall Mamta (Alok Mahra J.) 25.03.2026