IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1003 of 2011 In Compounding Application No. 12340 of 2011 1. Pradip Kumar Saini S/o Shri Ram Saran Saini 2. Ram Saran Saini S/o Fakir Chand 3. Tulsi Saini W/o Ram Saran Saini 4. Bina Saini D/o Ram Saran Saini 5. Ajay Saini S/o Ram Saran Saini All R/o Kela Khera P/S Bajpur District Udham Singh Nagar ………………..Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Senior Superintendent of Police U.S Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar 2. Station House Officer Police Station Rudrapur U.S. Nagar 3. Veer Singh Saini C/o Amar Singh Saini R/o Ward no.4 Bhadai Pura Kiccha Road Rudrapur U.S. Nagar ………….Opposite party 2 Shri V.D.Bisen , Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the state. Shri M.S. Bisht , Advocate, present for the respondent no.3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 03.11.2011, registered as Crime No. 514 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under section 498A and 323 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. (3) Petitioner no.1 is husband, petitioner no.2 is father in law, petitioner no.3 is mother in law, petitioner no.4 is sister in law and petitioner no.5 is brother in law of the daughter of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the complainant pleaded before this court that parties to matrimony have entered into 3 compromise, and to save the matrimony, now the complainant (respondent no.3) does not want to prosecute the case. A Compromise Application No. 12340 of 2011 has been moved, supported by affidavit. Complainant Veer Singh Saini identified by his counsel Shri M.S.Bisht, Advocate, verified the fact the he has entered into compromise with the petitioners, and his daughter Laxmi is ready to live with her husband Pradip Kumar Saini, as such now, the complainant also wants F.I.R. be quashed to save the matrimony of his daughter with petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 also undertook that he and other petitioners would not harass the daughter of the complainant. (5) In the above circumstances keeping in mind the principle of law laid down in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4SCC page 675, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned First Information Report dated 03.11.2011, registered as Crime No. 514 of 2011, relating to offences 4 punishable under section 498A and 323 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, and investigation thereon is hereby quashed. ( Compounding Application No. 12340 of 2011 stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.28.11.2011 N.P