IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1019/2010 Urmila Rawat W/o Late Shri Gabbar Singh Rawat, R/o Ishwar Vihar, Ladpur, P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarankhand & Others. …….Respondents January 5, 2011 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Shri Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been moved by the petitioner Smt. Urmila Rawat, whereby she has sought quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 3835 of 2010, State v. Vipin Rawat & Others, relating to offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 342, 452, 506, 323, 376 & 120-B IPC pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit. Perusal of the copy of the First Information Report (Annexure 1 to the petition) shows that the complainant Seeta Devi (respondent no. 3) has complained to the police that her daughter Sujata was abducted by Vipin Rawat (son of the present petitioner ), and the two got married on 7.4.2010. It is also mentioned in the FIR that thereafter Vipin Rawat and complainant’s daughter Sujata came back and lived together in the house of the complainant Seeta Devi (respondent no. 3). However, it is alleged that latter, on 12.5.2010, petitioner 2 Urmila Rawat came and took her son Vipin Rawat with her, after keeping Sujata in wrongful confinement. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 79/2010, relating to offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 452, 323, 342, 506, 376, 120B IPC was registered at Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun. After investigation, police submitted the impugned chargesheet (copy Annexure 3 to the petition) relating to offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 376, 342, 323, 452, 120B IPC. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the FIR itself it is clear that the petitioner’s son Vipin Rawat got married to Sujata (daughter of respondent no. 3/complainant) on 7.4.2010, whereafter they lived together with the complainant i.e. mother of the girl. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that complainant had no objection till her daughter and son-in-law lived together at her house. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that as to why the petitioner had taken her son with her. It is further pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that latter Vipin Rawat (son of the petitioner) had again gone back to the house of the complainant and now, he is living with his wife (Sujata) in her paternal house. In the circumstances, it is argued that in fact, no offence is made out as against any of the accused, and the prosecution, initiated by the complainant, is nothing but abuse of process of law. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the compromise entered into between Seeta Devi (complainant) and Vipin Rawat (son-in-law of the complainant), which further indicates that in fact, there is no dispute remained between the parties. Also, attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure 4 filed with the petition, which is copy of the statement of the girl (Sujata) recorded by the Uttarakhand State Women Commission in Complaint No. 401 of 2010. In the said proceedings, on 23.7.2010, Sujata made a statement that she wants to live with her husband (Vipin Rawat, son of the present petitioner). She has further stated that she is already pregnant. The State 3 Women Commission has observed in the proceedings on the said date (23.7.2010) that the complaint is dismissed after the parties to the matrimony entered into compromise. In the above circumstances, in view of principle of law laid down in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the impugned proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3835 of 2010, State v. Vipin Rawat & Others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same are hereby quashed. Petition stands allowed accordingly. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 5.1.2011 PRABODH