The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings, including charges under the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, against a husband and his relatives following an amicable settlement between the parties. Justice Pankaj Purohit allowed the application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observing that continuing the criminal case despite a full compromise would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from FIR No. 0390 of 2023 dated August 26, 2023, registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. Following the investigation, the police filed Charge Sheet No. 391 of 2023 against the applicants—comprising the husband and his relatives—under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3/4 of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
The applicants approached the High Court challenging the charge sheet and the cognizance/summoning order dated August 7, 2024, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, in Criminal Case No. 841 of 2024.
Arguments and Settlement
A joint compounding application was filed by the applicants and Respondent No. 2 (the complainant/wife), supported by separate affidavits. The parties submitted that the matter was a matrimonial dispute which had been settled amicably through a compromise deed dated October 28, 2025.
According to the settlement, the husband (Applicant No. 1) and the wife (Respondent No. 2) decided to separate on the condition of payment of Rs. 7,50,000 as permanent alimony. During the proceedings, the counsel for the applicants handed over a demand draft of Rs. 7,50,000 to the respondent in court. Respondent No. 2 stated that she did not want to prosecute the applicants further and wished to end the matter of her own free will.
One of the applicants (Applicant No. 4), who is currently residing in Kazakhstan, appeared via video conferencing. The Court allowed her exemption application and accepted an affidavit filed by her cousin on her behalf.
Legal Objections and Court’s Analysis
The learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection, noting that “some of the offences sought to be compounded are non-compoundable.”
Addressing this objection, Justice Purohit referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another (2003), which held that Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) does not limit the High Court’s inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
The Court further relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2013), quoting the observation that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if, due to a compromise, “the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice.”
Applying these principles, the Court observed:
“Since the parties have reached to the terms of the compromise, this Court is of the firm opinion that there would remain 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.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the compounding application and the application under Section 528 of BNSS. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 841 of 2024, along with the impugned Charge Sheet and FIR, were quashed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ahmad Wasid and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Misc Application No. 2004 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Purohit
- Counsel for Applicants: Mr. Mohd. Umar
- Counsel for State: Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder
- Counsel for Respondent No. 2: Mr. Zakir Ali
