Uttarakhand High Court
7 August vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 7 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6938
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 1352 of 2025
07 August, 2025
Devendra Singh Solanki
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Shubham Rana, learned counsel for respondent no.2
(appeared through V.C.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Present C528 application has been filed by the
applicant along with the joint compounding application
(IA/2/2025) for quashing the cognizance order dated
26.03.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No.1865 of 2025, State vs. Devendra Singh Solanki,
under Sections 498-A, 323 & 504 IPC, pending in the
court of learned 5th Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/ACJM,
Dehradun on the basis of compromise entered into
between the parties.
2. The ground for seeking compounding of offences
is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise
wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is
thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the
parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived
at between the parties.
1
2025:UHC:6938
3. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the offences sought to be
compounded are non-compoundable.
4. Applicant (husband)-Devendra Singh Solanki
(appeared through V.C.) and respondent no.2(wife)-
Madhubala Solanki are present in the Court being duly
identified by their respective counsel.
5. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that applicant and respondent no.2 have amicably
resolved their dispute and they do not want to pursue with
the criminal proceedings.
6. On interaction with respondent no.2(wife)-
Madhubala Solanki, she candidly admits that the matter
has been settled between them amicably and both the
husband and wife has decided to file a suit for mutual
divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 and the same has been filed before the Family Judge,
Bhopal, which is registered as Case No.801 of 2025, Smt.
Madhubala Solanki vs. Devendra Singh Solanki. The date of
first motion is 07.05.2025, while the date of second motion
is fixed on 18.12.2025. Respondent No. 2 informed this
Court that they have decided to withdraw all criminal
litigation and other matrimonial disputes, and that it would
be appropriate for them to obtain a mutual divorce.
Accordingly, both parties have filed the present
compounding application jointly.
7. Since the parties have settled the dispute
amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal
case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this
criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to
ask the applicant to appear before the trial court as
accused to face the trial.
2
2025:UHC:6938
8. 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.”
9. 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. Further the dispute sought to be resolve
is a matrimonial dispute which should be put to an end.
10. Since the parties have reached to the terms of
the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there
would be 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 after settlement. 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.
11. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/2/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. With the result, the
cognizance order dated 26.03.2025 as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1865 of 2025, State vs.
Devendra Singh Solanki, under Sections 498-A, 323 &
504 IPC, pending in the court of learned 5th Additional
Civil Judge (S.D.)/ACJM, Dehradun are hereby quashed.
FIR dated 22.11.2023 and the charge-sheet filed pursuant
thereto also stand quashed.
3
2025:UHC:6938
12. Present criminal misc. application thus stands
allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.08.2025
AK
4