Uttarakhand High Court
6 June vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:4617
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 572 of 2025
06 June, 2025
Harpreet Singh Kalra and others
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General along with
Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Ayush Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present writ petition,
petitioners have put to challenge the First Information
Report No.0037 of 2024 dated 27.06.2024, under
Sections 323, 498-A, 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1860, registered with
Police Station Ranipokhari, District Dehradun on the
basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
2. Along with present criminal writ petition, a
joint compounding application has also been filed by
the parties, which is duly supported by separate
affidavits of the parties.
3. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that the dispute between the parties is purely a
matrimonial dispute and petitioner no.1 (husband) and
respondent no.3(wife) have entered into compromise
and decided to live separately in future and for that,
1
2025:UHC:4617
they have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, which is registered as O.S. No.197
of 2024 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Rishikesh, Dehradun wherein the date of second
motion is fixed for 02.07.2025. Thus, respondent no.3
does not want to prosecute the petitioners.
4. Petitioner no.1-Harpreet Singh Kalra
(husband of respondent no.3), petitioner no.2-Harjit
Singh (father-in-law of respondent no.3), petitioner
no.3-Nirmal Kaur (mother-in-law of respondent no.3)
and respondent no.3-Ankita Verma (wife) are present in
the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel.
5. This Court interacted with the parties
specifically respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 stated
before the Court that she has no grievance against the
petitioners; she wants to live separately of the
petitioner no.1 and for said purpose both of them has
decided to seek mutual divorce and a mutual divorce
petition has already been filed by them; and she does
not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case.
6. It has been agreed between the parties that
petitioner no.1 (husband) shall pay a sum of
Rs.8,75,000/- to the respondent no.3-wife. Out of
which, petitioner no.1 has already paid Rs.3,00,000/-
through demand draft no.988414 dated 09.09.2024
drawn on the State Bank of India, Patiala and
Rs.1,50,000/- through demand draft no.988470 dated
01.11.2024 and the remaining amount i.e.
Rs.4,25,000/- was to be paid by the petitioner after
disposal of the mutual divorce petition.
2
2025:UHC:4617
7. However, petitioner no.1 has paid the
remaining amount i.e. Rs.4,25,000/- by way of two
demand drafts i.e. demand draft no.422887 dated
07.05.2025 amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- and demand
draft no.422888 dated 07.05.2025 amounting to
Rs.3,00,000/- which have been handed over by the
petitioner no.1 (husband) to the respondent no.3 (wife)
in the Court today. Thus, nothing remains to be
received by respondent no.3 at the time of disposal of
the mutual divorce petition.
8. Per contra, Learned State Counsel raised a
preliminary objection to the effect that some of the
offences sought to be compounded is non-
compoundable.
9. Since the parties have entered into
compromise and are living peacefully, this Court is of
the opinion that it will be a futile exercise to ask the
petitioners to face the criminal prosecution which
would ultimately result into the acquittal.
10. 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.”
11. 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
3
2025:UHC:4617
or affect the powers of the Court. But here the Court is
invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India which is far wider than
528 BNSS, 2023.
12. In this view of the matter, compounding
application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The
compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted.
First Information Report No.0037 of 2024 dated
27.06.2024, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 & 506 of
IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1860, registered with Police Station Ranipokhari,
District Dehradun are hereby quashed. Consequently,
all the subsequent proceedings pursuant to the
impugned FIR automatically shall come to an end.
13. Present criminal writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
off accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.06.2025
AK
4