C528/805/2025 of SOUMYA DEB MONDAL AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc Application U/s 528 No. 805 of 202506thAugust, 2025

Soumya Deb Mondal and ors. ………Applicants

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another ………..Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Ms. Mitali Arora, Advocate, through video conferencing and Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for the applicants.Mr. Rakesh Negi, B.H. for the State.

Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for respondent no.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present C528 application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet dated 03.03.2022 filed in FIR No.122 of 2020, summoning order dated 14.06.2022 and entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.4336 of 2022, State Vs. Soumya Deb Mondal and others, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 IPC, registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, pending in the court of learned V[th] Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.), Dehradun, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. joint compounding application has been moved on behalf of the parties, supported by their respective affidavits, seeking to compound offences under the aforesaid sections.

3. In the compounding application, it has been stated that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial and applicant no.1 (husband) and respondent no.2 (wife) have entered into compromise and decided to live separately in future.

2025:UHC:68834. The applicant no.1-Soumya Deb Mondal (husband), applicant no.2-Tapan Kumar Mondal, applicant no.3-Neelima Mondal, applicant no.4-Sanjib Bhowmik and respondent no.2-Anupam Nijhawan (wife) are present before this Court, through video conferencing, duly recognized and identified by their respective counsel.

5. On interaction with applicant no.1 and respondent no.2, it is revealed that they have decided to part ways and for that they have filed suit for mutual divorce under Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code, 2024, which is registered as Original Suit No.107 of 2025, Smt. Anupam Nijhawan Vs. Shree Soumya Deb Mondal in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, wherein the date of first motion was 14.06.2022 and second motion is tomorrow i.e., 07.08.2025.

6. An agreement has also arrived at between the parties for settling the dispute, between them, and on fulfilling of those conditions only respondent no.2 will not prosecute the applicants any more, which are quoted as hereunder:-

(i) Three children of the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 will live with respondent no.2 (wife) and;

(ii) ₹50,000/-, per month as maintenance will be given to respondent no.2 (wife) for meeting out her own expenses and for the expenses of their children.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has raised objection to compounding in the present case on the ground that the offence is non-compoundable.

8. So far as compounding of non-compoundable

offence is concerned, the Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of 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 woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with view to punishing 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 view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.”

9. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, there would remain 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. Since the answer to the aforesaid points is in affirmative, this Court finds it fit case to permit the parties to compound the matter.

10. Accordingly, Compounding Application (IA No.2 of 2025) is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As result, the impugned charge sheet dated 03.03.2022 filed in FIR

2025:UHC:6883

No.122 of 2020, summoning order dated 14.06.2022 and entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.4336 of 2022, State Vs. Soumya Deb Mondal and others, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 IPC, registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, pending in the court of learned V[th] Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.), Dehradun, against the applicants stand quashed, subject to compliance of conditions agreed upon between the parties vide first motion dated 01.02.2025 quoted as hereunder:-

(i) Three children of the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 will live with respondent no.2 (wife) and;

(ii) ₹50,000/-, per month as maintenance will be given to respondent no.2 (wife) for meeting out her own expenses and for the expenses of their children. 11. Accordingly C528 application stands disposed-off, in the aforesaid terms.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.08.2025