THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 282 of 2007 Smt. Radha W/o Shri Bhojraj Arora …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…. Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State/respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for respondent No.2. With Criminal Misc. Application No. 503 of 2007 Smt. Ritu D/o Bhojraj Arora and another …… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…. Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State/respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for respondent No.2. With Criminal Misc. Application No. 899 of 2007 Anuj S/o Bhojraj Arora …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…. Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State/respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for respondent No.2. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondent/State. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for respondent No.3. 2. By this common judgment, these petitions are being disposed of together as the facts and matters involved in these three petitions are of similar nature. 3. These petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed for quashing and setting aside the impugned cognizance order dated 25/04/2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Roorkee in Case No. 1055 of 2007. 2 4. During the course of the hearing of this petition, the parties have filed the compounding application No.351 of 2009 wherein it has been alleged that they have amicably settled their dispute outside the court. Both the parties have filed affidavit alongwith the compounding application before this court. The learned counsel for the parties have stated before the Court that they verify this fact. They have further stated that the parties have entered into amicable settlement outside the court and there is no further dispute between the parties. It was also pointed out that the family court has also decided their divorce petitions. 5. Considering that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement, no useful purpose will be served to prolong the pendency of the case. This is also the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003 SCC (Cri) p/848. 6. Considering the above facts and the principles laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the view that the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute outside the Court, the further proceedings of Criminal Case No.1055 of 2007 u/s 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the chargesheet, cognizance order and the proceedings are hereby quashed in view of the compromise 7. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 02.04.2009 Shiv