Judicial v. Ujjwal
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
compounding application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1313. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Ujjwal (Alok Mahra J.) 29.04.2026
Judgment
Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Gaurav Panwar, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.2.
The present criminal misc. application is filed with the prayer to set-aside and quash the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 409 of 2025, State Vs. Ikbal, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
Now, Compounding Application is filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offences between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise.
Parties are present before this Court and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Parties have also filed their respective affidavits stating the facts of compromise between them. The Court interacted with the parties. Upon 8. interaction, respondent no. 2 submits that now they have decided to live separately pursuant to which they have filed an application under Section 27 of UCC before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in which first motion has already been passed. It is further submitted by her that she has amicably settled her dispute with the applicant and she does not want to pursue with the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
At this stage, learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non- compoundable.
However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page 675, has permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences with the permission of Court.
Furthermore, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of its judgments, has observed that in cases where because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings as continuation of the same would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused.
Operative part
Following the aforesaid ratio, the present compounding application is allowed. The offences to be the parties are permitted between compounded. As a result, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 409 of 2025, State Vs. Ikbal, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of IPC, pending Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. FIR and charge-sheet quashed. filed pursuant the court of learned thereto
Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Ujjwal (Alok Mahra J.) 29.04.2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: compounding application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.