IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 149 of 2006 Brij Bhushan Sharda and others …… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…. Respondents Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.C. Pujari, Addl. G.A. for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No.2. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.C. Pujari, Addl. G.A. for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No.2. 2. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet No.146 of 2005 dated 28/08/2005 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2374 of 2005 u/s 498-A, I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 3. While granting the stay of the proceedings, this Court vide its order dated 07/03/2006 directed the parties to appear before the Marriage Counselling Cell for compromise. Thereafter, during the pendency of this petition, a case was pending before the Family Judge, Dehradun u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The compromise took place in between the parties and the said divorce proceedings were decided in terms of the compromise vide order dated 16/07/2008. Para 3 of the said compromise reads as under:- “;g fd oknh o mldh ekrk Jherh tud o mldh cgu Jherh 'kf’k 'kekZ o v’ofu dqekj ds fo:} tks eqdnek ua0 2374 lu~ 2005 ekuuh; phQ tqfMf’k;y eftLVs~V] nsgjknwu ds ;gkW yfEcr gS vkSj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] uSuhrky ds vkns’k rkjh[kh 07&03&2006 tks Criminal Application No.149 of 2006, cztHkw"k.k o rhu vU; cuke mRrjkapy jkT; o vU;] esa 2 ikfjr gS] LVs gSA mlesa Hkh foi{kh o oknh izkFkZuki= nsdj ekuuh; phQ tqfMf’k;y eftLVs~V] nsgjknwu esa yfEcr mijksDr okn dks Hkh jn~n djk ysaxsA” 4. Perusal of part 2 of the file reveals that notice has been served upon the respondent No.2. Inspite of the service of the notice, the private respondent is not present. The said compromise deed has been signed and verified by both the parties. It is clear from the said compromise that the respondent No.2 did not want to continue these proceedings and the matter has been settled as indicated in the compromise. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal & others 2005 SCC (Cri) 719 has been held as follows:- 5. In the compromise petition, referred to hereinabove, both the parties had agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed by each against the other. It is pursuant to this compromise, the above divorce as sought for by the appellant was granted by the husband and pursuant to the said compromise deed the appellant also withdrew Criminal Case No. 63 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Nainital which was a complaint filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. It is on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the appellant and on the basis of the terms of the compromise, the said case came to be dismissed. However, so far as the complaint under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, which is the subject- matter of this appeal, the appellant did not take any steps to withdraw the same. It is in those circumstances, a quashing petition was filed before the High Court which came to be partially allowed on the ground of the territorial jurisdiction, against the said order the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. From the above-narrated facts, it is clear that in the compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the appellant admitted that she has received stridhan and maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be entitled to maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook to withdraw all proceedings, civil and criminal, filed and initiated by her against the respondents within one month of the compromise deed, which included the complaint under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint this appeal arises. In the said compromise, the respondent husband agreed to withdraw his petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Senior Judge, Civil Division, 3 Rampur and also agreed to give a consent divorce as sought for by the appellant. 9. In view of the abovesaid subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash the proceedings arising from criminal case Cr. No. 224 of 2003 registered in Police Station Bilaspur (District Rampur) filed under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is disposed of.” 5. If the further proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 2374 of 2005 State of Uttaranchal Vs. Brij Bhushan Sharda and others u/s 498(A) I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun allowed to be continued, it would be an abuse of the process of law. In view of the promise arrived at in between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the chargesheet and the proceedings in the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed. 6. Considering the above facts and the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the chargesheet and further proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 2374 of 2005 State of Uttaranchal Vs. Brij Bhushan Sharda and others u/s 498(A) I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 18.03.2009 Shiv