IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 329 of 2010 1. Hari Shankar S/o Babu Ram 2. Kamla Devi W/o Babu Ram 3. Babu Ram S/o Raja Ram 4. Raju Chandra S/o Babu Ram 5. Rajeev Chandra S/o Babu Ram 6. Jitendra @ Bittu S/o Babu Ram All R/o Indra Colony, P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 7. Anil Kumar S/o Ram Charan R/o Haldor District Bijnor (U.P.). 8. Rani W/o Anil Kumar R/o Haldor District Bijnor (U.P.). ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Home), Uttarakhand Government, Dehradun. 2. Purusottam Saran S/o Gulab singh R/o House No. 144-B, Opposite LIC Awas Vikas P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1 / State. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate along with Mr. Subhash Chandra, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Purusottam (complainant). Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1989 of 2006; State Vs. Hari Shankar and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Kashipur, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3) Learned counsel for the parties state that the parties to the matrimony have entered into compromise. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant (respondent No. 2) and Mrs. Geeta (wife of petitioner No. 1 Hari Shankar) (the affected party). In the affidavit filed by Geeta and Mr. Purusottam Saran (complainant) it has been stated that the parties to the matrimony i.e. Mrs. Geeta and Hari Shankar have entered into compromise, and the complainant and his daughter are no more interested to prosecute the petitioners. It has been prayed on behalf of the complainant and his daughter Geeta that the criminal proceedings challenged in this petition may be quashed. The parties to the matrimony are present in person. The complainant is also present in person. They verified the compromise in the presence of their counsel, who identified them. 4) In view of the principle of law laid down in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 Supreme Court 3 Cases 675, in the above circumstances, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. 5) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1989 of 2006; State Vs. Hari Shankar and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Kashipur, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed. (Stay Application No. 361 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 28, 2010. H. Negi 4