Criminal Case No. 182 of 2021 · High Court of Uttarakhand · 2025

applicant no.1-Nitin Chauhan and respondent no.2-Smt. Kanchan Chauhan, seeking to compound offences under the aforesaid sections.

3. It is contended in the compounding application that both – applicants as well as respondent no.2 – have resolved their dispute. Respondent no.2, particularly, submitted that she doesn’t have any grievance against the applicants and she wants to put the matter to rest. 1

4. Applicant no.1-Nitin Chauhan present physically while applicant no.2-Smt. Pavitra Devi, applicant no.3-Vipin Chauhan and respondent no.2-Smt. Kanchan Chauhan are present through video conferencing before this Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. In terms of compromise arrived at between the parties, they want to set aside the aforesaid criminal proceedings mentioned hereinabove.

5. Today, on interaction with both the parties it is submitted by them that they do not want to proceed with the present litigation anymore.

6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been specifically mentioned in paragraph nos.3 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the compounding application.

7. This Court interacted with the parties, particularly with respondent no.2-Smt. Kanchan Chauhan (wife), who submits that she does not wish to pursue the present litigation, subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions stated in the compromise affidavit, filed in support of the compounding application. She also stated that if the applicants comply with these conditions, she is willing to compound the present litigation and does not wish to proceed against them.

8. It is contended in para no.6 of the affidavit, filed in support of the compounding application, that respondent no.2-Smt. Kanchan Chauhan, will be handed-over a Demand Draft No.513792 amounting to ₹12,00,000/-, it is only thereafter the pending cases against the applicants will be quashed.

9. The aforesaid demand draft is handed-over by applicant no.1 to the father of respondent no.2, who is present before this Court, who after perusal of the aforesaid demand draft submitted that everything is perfectly clear and in order. 2

10. Since the parties have entered into a compromise and they do not want to pursue the dispute there is no impediment in compounding the offence between the parties.

11. Learned State counsel has not seriously opposed the compounding for the reason that dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature.

12. So far as compounding of non-compoundable offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise, in this regard, in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and has held as below: - “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860.

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.”

13. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, there would remain a remote or bleak possibility of conviction in this case. It can also safely be inferred that it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to permit continuation of the criminal proceedings. Since the answer to 3 the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

14. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA No.3 of 2025) is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, cognizance/summoning order dated 02.12.2021, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.182 of 2021 (New No.614 of 2022), State Vs. Nitin Chauhan and others, for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC registered at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, alongwith the entire proceedings of aforesaid Criminal Case, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (now in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar), against the applicants shall stand quashed.

15. C482 application stands disposed-off, in the aforesaid terms. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.08.2025 4