HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.1685 of 2021

11^th 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.

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 is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860.

15. In vi