Anuj Kumar and Ors v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

WPCRL/1513/2026 Anuj Kumar And Ors --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing.

Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Beniwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 through video conferencing.

¶2By means of the present Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the F.I.R. dated 29.04.2025, registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No. 465 of 2025, under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, along with arising therefrom.

¶3A Compounding Application, jointly signed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent no. 3, duly supported by the affidavits of the petitioners as well as respondent no. 3, has been filed before this Court.

¶4Learned counsel for the parties submitted that all disputes between the parties have been amicably resolved and that respondent no. 3 has no grievance whatsoever against the petitioners.

¶5Today, the petitioners and respondent no. 3 are present before this Court through video conferencing and

have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel.

¶6Respondent no. 3 has categorically stated before this Court that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily and without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. She has further stated that she has no objection if the impugned F.I.R. and arising therefrom are quashed.

¶7Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes. Respondent no. 3 does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of conviction appears to be remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal would serve useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶8Having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, as well as in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served by quashing the impugned F.I.R. and all arising therefrom in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶9Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. The F.I.R. dated

29.04.2025, registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No. 465 of 2025, under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of the IPC and

Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, along with arising therefrom, is hereby quashed.

¶10Consequently, the Compounding Application stands disposed of.

¶11Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 04-08-2026 SB

SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE 29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.08.05 10:16:12 +05'30'