IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 209 of 2010 1. Vijay 2. Ramesh 3. Rakesh 4. Rajendra All S/o Late Mangat Ram Chaudhary 5. Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Late Mangat Ram Chaudhary 6. Smt. Meenakshi, W/o Rajendra 7. Smt. Brijbala, W/o Ramesh 8. Smt. Babli, W/o Rakesh Chaudhary 9. Smt. Beena, D/o Late Mangat Ram Chaudhary All R/o 2151/10, T-5, New Patel Nagar Delhi 10. Ravindra, W/o Banwari Lal R/o House No. 30/33, D-Shiv Chowk West Patel Nagar, New Delhi ………..…Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand. 2. Smt.Neetu, W/o Vijay D/o Ratan Lal R/o House No. 42, Gali No. 5 Jagatpuri, Delhi At present residing under the C/o Shri Vipin Chanchal 63, Chabil Bagh, Kanwali Road, Dehradun. ....……Respondents 2 Shri S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate present for the respondent no. 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 4536 of 2009, State vs. Vijay and others, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted before this Court that parties to matrimony have already entered into compromise. They are present in court and identified by their counsel. 4. An application no. 678 of 2011, has been moved by respondent no. 2 Neetu (complainant) supported by her affidavit in which it is mentioned that in the light of the compromise between the 3 parties, she does not want to prosecute the petitioners. Smt. Neetu who was present in court identified by her counsel verified by said fact. 5. In view of the above development, and keeping in mind principle of law laid down in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4SCC page 675, this petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The impugned criminal proceedings of criminal case no. 4536 of 2009, State vs. Vijay and others, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (Stay vacation application no. 1243 of 2010, and criminal miscellaneous application no. 678 of 2011, also stand disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 29.06.2011