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.1685 of 2021
11th August, 2025
Yogendra Alias Kallu 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.12 of 2021 dated 15.01.2021 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.566 of 2021 (New
No.721 of 2023) (Case Crime No.344 of 2019), State Vs. Smt.
Deepa Pandey and others, for the offence punishable under
Sections 323 and 506 of IPC 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-Yogendra @ Kallu @ Virendra Singh Chauhan
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
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.
1
2025:UHC:7046
4. Applicant no.1-Yogendra @ Kallu @ Virendra Singh
Chauhan is present physically while applicant no.2-Surya
Chauhan @ Nishu, applicant no.3-Vivek Pandey, applicant
no.4-Smt. Deepa Pandey and respondent no.2-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 (Section 506 of IPC).
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
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 is2
2025:UHC:7046
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.2 of
2025) is allowed. The offences between the parties are
permitted to be compounded. As a result, the Charge Sheet
No.12 of 2021 dated 15.01.2021 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.566 of 2021 (New
No.721 of 2023) (Case Crime No.344 of 2019), State Vs. Smt.
Deepa Pandey and others, for the offence punishable under
Sections 323 and 506 of IPC 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),
against the applicants shall stand quashed.
11. C482 application stands disposed-off, in the
aforesaid terms.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
11.08.2025
3
2025:UHC:7046
SK
4