IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 616 of 2005 With Miscellaneous Appn. No. 258 of 2009 Compounding Appn. No. 259 of 2009 Major Manish Baunthiyal S/o Sri J.P. Baunthiyal, Presently posted at 5271, A.S.C. Battalion, C/o 56, A.P.O. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal / State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Rani Baunthiyal D/o Sri G.N. Pokhriyal R/o 8, Sewak Road, Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mrs. Monika Pant, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the state / respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Misc. Application No. 258 of 2009, moved on behalf of the petitioner, with the prayer that the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 2047 of 2005, State Vs. Major Manish Baunthiyal, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, be quashed, as prayed in 2 the petition moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was admitted on 17.09.2005. In the connected Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 130 of 2006, moved on behalf of the in-laws of the complainant, while admitting said petition on 24.02.2006, this Court has directed the parties to the matrimony to appear before the Marriage Counseling Cell, Dehradun, on 31st of March 2006, for reconciliation. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that parties to the matrimony have already entered into compromise. An affidavit has been filed in support of Application No. 258 of 2009, pertains to compounding of the offences between the parties to the matrimony. Copy of the compromise filed by the parties to matrimony i.e. Major Manoj Baunthiyal and Smt. Rani Bhauntiyal, in Original Suit No. 72 of 2007, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, is annexed as Annexure –1 to the affidavit filed with the application No. 258 of 2009. In para 5 of said compromise it has been agreed between the parties to the matrimony that respondent / complainant would file compromise in respect of proceedings, under challenge before this Court. 3 5) On the last date i.e. 12.05.2010, learned counsel for the respondent / complainant sought time to seek instructions. 6) The fact that the parties to the matrimony have entered into compromise, is not denied. 7) In view of principle of law laid down in B.S. Joshi Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., deserves to be allowed. 8) In the above circumstances, for the reasons as discussed above, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 2047 of 2005, State Vs. Major Manish Baunthiyal, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Dalanwala, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (Misc. Application No. 258 of 2009 and Application No. 259 of 2009 also stand disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 18, 2010. H. Negi 4