Uttarakhand High Court

WPCRL/1619/2026 of VANDANA KOTHARI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 25 August 2026

2026:UHC:7698

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/1619/2026 Vandana Kothari --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sandeep Kothari,

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

WPCRL/1619/2026

Vandana Kothari --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pradeep Lohani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Ms. Gurbani Singh and Ms. Shweta Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.3.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the F.I.R./Case Crime No.167 of 2023, under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. A joint compounding application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no.3, duly supported by the respective affidavits of the petitioner and the father of respondent no.3. It is stated therein that, during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and differences and have mutually agreed to maintain peace and harmony and live peacefully with each other. It is further stated that, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, they have agreed to withdraw the cases/proceedings instituted by each of them against the other. It is also stated that the parties have taken steps towards dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and have already filed the

Page 1 of 3

first motion under Section 27 of the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, for seeking divorce by mutual consent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have entered into settlement, therefore, the matter needs to be compounded.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that dispute has now been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, his client wants to close the matter to ensure that peace is restored.

6. Today, petitioner and respondent no.3 joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing, who are duly identified by their respective counsels.

7. Both the parties also made a statement that, in view of the settlement, they want to close the matter.

8. Having regard to the nature of offence and also considering the broad guidelines issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs State of Punjab & another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, request of the petitioner deserves to be acceded to.

9. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, possibility of the trial resulting into conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and, that being so, continuation of criminal proceedings would visit the accused with great oppression, prejudice and injustice. Rather, it would tantamount to abuse of process of law. Ends of justice would be met if criminal proceedings are put to an end, because this would allow the parties to translate their decision to live in peace in the reality. The only consideration for the compromise reached between the parties seems to be their desire to burry the hatchet for all times to

Page 2 of 3

come. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.

10. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. F.I.R./Case Crime No.167 of 2023, under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun, is hereby quashed along with all the proceedings emanating therefrom, qua the petitioner.

11. Compounding application is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Alok Mahra, J.)

25.08.2026 Arpan

ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445 e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5 109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.08.25 17:50:37 +05'30'

Page 3 of 3

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead