Vipul Goyal and Ors v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

2023 Smt. Tanu Rajput Vs. Vipul Goyal and Others, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1960, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Second, Haridwar.

2. Along with the present C482 application, a joint compounding application (IA/4/2025) is filed duly supported by separate affidavits by applicants and respondent No.2-complainant.

3. In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that they have amicably settled their differences and have been residing together since

15.05.2025 at Saharanpur, which is the work place of the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 does not want to pursue with the case anymore. 1

4. Applicant No.1-Vipul Goyal and respondent No.2-Smt. Tanu Rajput are present physically, while applicant No.2-Pushpa Rani and applicant No.3-Reshu Goyal are present through V.C. before this Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, respondent No.2 categorically stated that the matter is now amicably settled by them, therefore, she wants to end the matter with her free will and without any undue pressure and does not want to prosecute applicants in the aforesaid matter any further.

5. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that some of the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable.

6. 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: - “If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.”

7. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

8. Learned counsel for the parties also drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below: “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent 2 jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. ………………… In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

9. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that 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 the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it a fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

10. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/4/ 2025) is allowed.

11. In view of the above, the present C482 application is allowed in terms of the compromise. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2063 of 2023 Smt. Tanu Rajput Vs. Vipul Goyal and Others, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1960, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Second, Haridwar, is hereby quashed qua the applicants. 3 Consequently, all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid Criminal Case automatically shall come to an end.

12. Interim order dated 14.06.2024 stands vacated.

13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. PN PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe383 31bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FA E064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 04.08.2025 4