Sanjay Kumar And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

The present C528 application is filed with the prayer to challenge the cognizance order dated 21.11.2009, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 403 of 2013, under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC r/w Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,

on the ground that the parties have entered into settlement.

A joint Compounding Application (IA No.2 of 2025) has been filed along with present C528 application, by the applicants as well as respondent

no.3, which is supported by their respective affidavits.

It is contended in the compounding application by the parties that they have entered into amicable settlement and particularly respondent no.3 does

not want to pursue with the present case, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties.

Today applicant no.1 (Sanjay Kumar), applicant no.2 (Smt. Savitri), applicant no.3 (Jeewan Lal) and respondent no.3 (Smt Kiran) (through vide

conferencing), are present before this Court, duly identified by their respective Advocates.

On interaction with the parties, it has been submitted by the parties that they do not want to prolong the matter any further and want to settle the

dispute amicably.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they have handed â€" over a draft, numbered as 081975 amounting to ₹6,00,000/- dated 07.01.2025,

to the Counsel of respondent no.3, today in the Court premises.

Respondent no.3, however, made a categorical statement before this Court that she does not want to pursue with any case including First Appeal

No.129 of 2020 pending before this Court, in which a settlement was made to put an end to all the disputes between them.

I have gone through the compounding application and the pleadings made by the applicants in C528 application.

This Court is convinced that once the parties have decided to settle their dispute amicably, particularly in matrimonial case, it would not be

appropriate to direct them to join the trial which would ultimately result in to nothing but acquittal and would amount to be a futile exercise.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has no serious opposition, if the matter is settled through compromise.

The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page 675’, has permitted

compounding of non-compoundable offences with the permission of Court, especially in matrimonial disputes.

Accordingly Compounding Application (IA No.2 of 2025) is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a

result, the cognizance order dated 21.11.2009, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 403 of

2013, under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC r/w Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as well as entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case are

hereby quashed.

C528 application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.