Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Mr. Parth Tamta, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant.

4. Present C-482 application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.5392 of 2023, along with the entire proceedings of the said criminal case.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the dispute in question emanates from matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 (husband) and respondent no.2 (wife). Applicant nos.2 and 3 are father-in-law and brother-in-law of respondent no.2. It is contended that due to certain matrimonial differences, respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; that, Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has submitted chargesheet, upon which, learned trial court has taken cognizance.

6. It is further submitted that with the intervention of respectable persons and family members, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes. They have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and have filed petition under Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand.

7. The applicants and respondent no.2 are present before the Court through Video Conferencing and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. On being interacted with, respondent no.2 has categorically stated that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence; that, she has no objection if the criminal proceedings in question are quashed.

8. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The offences alleged are under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Though certain offences are non- compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the dispute admittedly arises out of a matrimonial relationship and is personal in nature, without any element of public interest or societal impact.

9. The legal position with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise is no longer res integra. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences, where the dispute is essentially private and