Satveer Singh Virok Vs State of Uttarakhand

2026:UHC:4417

. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			C528/1206/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
			Mr. Chandramauli Shah, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State.
			3. Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
			4. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.622 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the court of the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate 1^stClass Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case.
			5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the dispute in question emanates from matrimonial discord between applicant and respondent no.2 are husband and wife respectively. It is contended that due to certain matrimonial differences, respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant; that, Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has submitted chargesheet, upon which, learned trial court has taken cognizance against the applicant. 6. It is further submitted that with the intervention of respectable persons and familymembers, theparties have amicably

¶3

2026:UHC:4417

¶4

resolved all their disputes. The parties have
decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual
consent and have filed a petition under
Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code,
Uttarakhand. Therefore, a compounding
application along with affidavit of the
applicant and respondent no.3 has been
filed by the parties to quash the criminal
proceedings on the basis of compromise.
7. The applicant 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. Learned State counsel would oppose
the compounding application on the ground
that certain offences are non-compoundable
offence; however, he does not dispute the
factum of compromise between the parties.
9. This Court has considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material
available on record. Though certain offences
are non-compoundable under Section 320
Cr.P.C., the dispute admittedly arises out of
a matrimonial relationship and is purely
personal in nature, having no element of
public interest or adverse societal impact. In
view of the amicable settlement arrived at
between the parties and considering that the
continuance of criminal proceedings would
serve no useful purpose, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the ends ofjustice

¶5

2026:UHC:4417

¶6

would be met by quashing the proceedings
in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. 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
personal in nature and the parties have amicably settled the matter, provided that the offences do not have serious impact on society.
11. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down broad
guidelines for quashing on the basis of
compromise and observed that criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly
those arising out of matrimonial or family
disputes, should be quashed when the
parties have resolved their entire dispute, so as to secure the ends of justice.
12. Further, in State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Laxmi Narayan, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reiterated that criminal proceedings
arising out of matrimonial disputes and
family matters, which have been amicably
settled, can be quashed in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction, unless the offences are
heinous and of serious mental depravity.
More recently, in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State
of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
summarized the principles governing

¶7

2026:UHC:4417

¶8

exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the High Court must evaluate whether continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and whether quashing would secure the ends of justice. 13. In the present case, the allegations stem purely from matrimonial discord between the husband and wife. The parties have amicably settled their dispute; and respondent no.3 has unequivocally stated that she has no objection to quashing of the proceedings. There is no allegation of any heinous offence, nor is there any element affecting society at large. Continuation of criminal proceedings, in such circumstances, would serve no fruitful purpose. 14. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the compounding application is allowed. Consequently, the present C-528 application stands allowed. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.622 of 2022 pending before the court of the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3 MAMT e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67e bbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, (Alok Mahra, J.) A RANI serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690 02.06.2026 Mamta a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.03 16:16:43 +05'30'

Satveer Singh Virok v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satveer Singh Virok v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawna Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vipul Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sbfc Finance Ltd. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nitin Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Tauheed Beg and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Himanshu Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand