(Oral)

1. Present C528 application has been filed by the applicant along with the joint compounding application (IA/1/2025) for quashing the cognizance order dated 07.02.2024; summoning order dated 01.04.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2043 of 2024, State of Uttarakhand vs. Eish Kumar Sahni, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

2. The ground for seeking compounding of offences is that parties have reached to the terms of compromise wherefor a settlement has also reached between them. It is thus, prayed that the present proceedings between the parties may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable.

4. The applicant, Eish Kumar Sahni (husband), is present before this Court through video conferencing, and respondent no. 2, Swati Suri (wife), is present in the Court, duly identified by their respective Advocates. Both parties have filed a joint compounding application supported by affidavits. The affidavit on behalf of the applicant has been filed by his father as the applicant is out of the country, while respondent no. 2 has filed her own affidavit in support of the compounding application.

5. In the compounding application, it is stated that Case No. 137 of 2024, Swati Suri vs. Eish Kumar Sahni, a petition for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been filed by the parties before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. The settlement terms have been recorded therein, under which the husband is liable to pay INR 33 lakhs to respondent no. 2, Swati Suri, towards full and final settlement of all claims, including compensation, permanent alimony, maintenance, etc. It has further been stated that both parties, as well as their family members, shall withdraw their respective cases on the basis of the compromise before the presentation of the second motion.

6. Upon interaction, the parties have submit that they have settled their disputes and have sought mutual divorce by filing the aforesaid petition, Case No. 137 of 2024, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent no. 2, Swati Suri, has stated during the interaction that the date of the first motion for the mutual divorce was 28.11.2024, while the second motion is scheduled for 08.12.2025 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. She further submits that she is ready to withdraw all pending cases, subject to receipt of the full and final settlement amount in terms of the conditions agreed upon in the divorce petition, wherein the applicant-husband was liable to pay INR 33 lakhs to respondent no. 2-wife, out of which INR 15 lakhs had already been received by her. Today, learned counsel for the applicant has handed over three demand drafts, bearing numbers 058039, 058040, and 461847, amounting to INR 18 lakhs, to respondent no. 2-wife before this Court.

7. Since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this criminal case pending and it will be a futile exercise to ask the applicants to appear before the trial court as accused to face the trial.

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: -

          "If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power."

9. Thus, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 582 of the BNSS, 2023. Further the dispute sought to be resolve is a matrimonial dispute which should be put to an end.

10. Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would be 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 after settlement. 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.

11. Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2025) is hereby allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. With the result, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2043 of 2024, State of Uttarakhand vs. Eish Kumar Sahni, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun are hereby quashed. FIR dated 30.09.2023 and the charge- sheet filed pursuant thereto also stand quashed.

12. Present criminal misc. application thus stands allowed. Other pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly.