IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 408 of 2004 1. Ashwani S/o Sri Kishan Lal 2. Deepak s/o Sri Ashwani Kumar 3. Pankaj S/o Sri Ashwani Kumar All R/o 17 / 38 B, Tilaknagar, New Delhi. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Home Secretary, Dehradun. 2. Sri Jitendra Sethi S/o Sri Panna Lal Sethi R/o Avas Vikas Colony, Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Govt. Advocate, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1695 of 2003, State Vs. Ashwani and others, relating to offences punishable 2 under Section 498-A, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Kashipur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that parties to the matrimony have entered into compromise, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure –4 to the affidavit filed with petition. However, respondent No. 2 Jitendra Sethi (complainant) has not turned up to verify the fact. Nor, Renu (wife of petitioner No. 2) has turned up to state that she has entered into compromise with petitioner No. 2. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that a divorce petition is already pending between petitioner No. 2 Deepak and his wife Renu, before judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, which is registered as Case No. 52 of 2002. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned charge sheet is liable to be quashed, as the police after investigation earlier submitted final report. However, from the record it appears that the complainant filed protest petition, on which the Magistrate directed further investigation in the matter, and consequently, the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer. 4) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 Jitendra Sethi (father-in-law of petitioner No. 2) shows that the alleged compromise is not admitted to 3 the complainant, who has denied the alleged compromise. 5) In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the ground of the aforesaid compromise. 6) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners, namely Ashwani, Deepak and Pankaj surrender before the court concerned (and if they are not on bail), their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Interim order dated 1st of October 2004, stands vacated. The Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. August 19, 2010. H. Negi