The Uttarakhand High Court has affirmed that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes, including charges under Section 498A IPC and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, can be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, when both parties have voluntarily settled and request compounding. This judgment upholds existing precedent and offers binding authority for similar cases within Uttarakhand, particularly for quashing of criminal proceedings where disputes are private and resolved amicably.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | C528/679/2025 of DEEPANSHU GANGWAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010071762025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of Uttarakhand High Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Matrimonial Offences; Inherent Powers (Section 528 BNSS) |
| Questions of Law | Whether court can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes upon amicable settlement under Section 528 BNSS. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that where parties to a matrimonial dispute allege that they have settled all disputes amicably, have filed the necessary affidavits and compounding applications, and have expressed their wish to end criminal proceedings arising from those disputes, it serves the ends of justice to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. The voluntary nature of settlement by both parties, especially the complainant, is crucial. The State’s lack of opposition to the settlement further supports quashing. The Court thus allowed the application and quashed all pending criminal proceedings. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Applicants included a husband and his mother, with the wife as informant. Matrimonial disputes led to FIR under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. All parties, via affidavits and compounding application, stated settlement was voluntary and requested quashing of criminal proceedings. The State did not oppose the request. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; grounds for quashing under BNSS |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS include quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial/offences involving settlement.
- Reinforces that the presence and express consent of both the informant and the accused, recorded via affidavits and compounding applications, is central to quashing.
- State’s consent or opposition is not determinative when the dispute is private and parties settle voluntarily.
- Lawyers should ensure complete documentation of amicable settlement (affidavits and compounding applications) for successful petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court explicitly considered the presence of all parties via video conferencing and their identification by respective counsel.
- Recognised that the disputes were matrimonial and both sides declared voluntary settlement through affidavits and a compounding application.
- Noted that the informant (wife) consented to quashing and did not act under coercion.
- The State was given an opportunity to respond and did not oppose the request for quashing.
- The Court concluded that, given the totality of the circumstances and in pursuit of justice, proceedings should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.
- The judgment follows the precedent that courts can exercise inherent powers to quash criminal cases in private, settled disputes to prevent misuse of process.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- There were only matrimonial disputes between the parties.
- Disputes have been resolved; voluntary settlement has been reached.
- Both parties have submitted affidavits and a compounding application to this effect.
- Requested quashing of criminal proceedings.
Respondent No.2 (Informant/Wife)
- Supported the request for quashing.
- Confirmed voluntariness and absence of any pressure in the settlement.
State (Respondent No.1)
- Did not oppose the request for quashing.
Factual Background
The case arose from matrimonial disputes between the applicants (husband and his mother) and the informant (wife). An FIR was filed invoking Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. During pendency of proceedings, all parties reached an amicable settlement. They filed affidavits and a compounding application indicating settlement was voluntary, with both sides requesting quashing of the criminal case. The State did not object to the request.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment was rendered under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which confers inherent powers on the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate circumstances.
- The Court interpreted Section 528 to apply to cases where parties have amicably resolved their dispute, especially in matrimonial matters.
- The judgment also references the scope for compounding offences under existing criminal law, with an expansive reading regarding amicable settlements.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment confirms and follows established legal principles regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial cases upon settlement.