Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 11 August, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 11 August, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:7046
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
 Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.1686 of 2021
                        11th August, 2025

Pavitra Devi and others                        ..............Applicants


                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State.
Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present C482 application has been filed by
the applicants for quashing and setting aside the Charge
Sheet No.12A of 2021 dated 26.03.2021 as well as
impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 23.06.2021,
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.567 of
2021 (New No.702 of 2023) (Case Crime No.344 of 2019),
State Vs. Nitin Chauhan and others, for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at
Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (now in
the court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Khatima,
Udham Singh Nagar).

2. A joint compounding application has been
moved on behalf of the parties, supported by affidavits of
the applicant no.1-Smt. Pavitra Devi 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

1
2025:UHC:7046
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.

4. Applicant no.2-Nitin Chauhan is present
physically while applicant no.1-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. This Court interacted with the parties,
particularly with respondent no.2-Smt. Kanchan Chauhan,
who submits that she does not wish to pursue the present
litigation

6. 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.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has
formally raised objection to the offence made out in the
present case on the ground that the offence is non-
compoundable.

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: –

“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

2
2025:UHC:7046
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.”

9. 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 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 No.5
of 2025) is allowed. The offences between the parties are
permitted to be compounded. As a result, the Charge Sheet
No. 12A of 2021 dated 26.03.2021 as well as impugned
cognizance/summoning order dated 23.06.2021, passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima,
Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.567 of 2021 (New
No.702 of 2023) (Case Crime No.344 of 2019), State Vs.
Nitin Chauhan and others, for the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC and Section 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court
of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima,

3
2025:UHC:7046
District Udham Singh Nagar (now in the court of learned
Additional Civil Judge, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar),
against the applicants shall stand quashed.

11. C482 application stands disposed-off, in the
aforesaid terms.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
11.08.2025
SK

4