IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln (C482) No. 539 of 2010 1. Mahanand Shukla S/O Shri Gopal Dutt Shukla 2. Smt Vijaya Shukla, W/O Shri Mahanand Shukla 3. Lokesh Shukla S/O shri Mahanand Shukla All R/O House No. 427, L.B. Enclave, Sector 49-A, Chandi Garh ………. Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand Secretary, Home, Civil Secretariat, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Chakradhar Kandwal S/O Shri Mahimanand Kandwal, R/O Kendrayadhaksh, Akashvani, Pauri, Dist Pauri Garhwal. ………………Respondents Shri Pawan Mishra, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State Shri Dinesh Gahtori, Advocate, present for respondent no.2/complainant Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 387 of 2008, State vs. Mahanand Shukla and others, relating to 2 offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Pauri, in terms of compromise dated 07.12.2007 entered into between the parties, outside the court. (3) Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the complainant daughter was settled with petitioner no.3 (Lokesh Shukla), in the month of January 2007. However, the marriage could not be solemnized. The First Information Report got registered after obtaining orders (copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition) under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., by the complainant. The same discloses that the marriage could not be solemnized as the petitioners’ demanded dowry. However, after police machinery got into motion, during investigation, it appears that parties entered into compromise on 07.12.2007 (copy of Annexure-2 to the petition) and the application was submitted by the complainant to the Investigation Officer to terminate the proceedings. However, the Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. Hence this petition. (4) Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant submitted that the complainant is present in person in the court and still adhere that he does not want to prosecute the petitioners after he has entered into compromise with the petitioners. The complainant Chakradhar Kandwal, identified by his counsel verified the factum of compromise and pleaded that the prosecution against the petitioners may be quashed. 3 (5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court is of the view that in the facts and above circumstances of the case, no useful purpose is going to be served by prosecuting the petitioners in the case. Therefore in the interest of justice the petition deserves to be allowed. (6) The petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal case No. 387 of 2008, state vs. Mahanand Shukla and others, relating to offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Pauri, are hereby quashed. Dt.15.6.2010 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)