IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 308 of 2010 with Stay Vacation Application No. 964 of 2010 Compounding Application No. 622 of 2011 Vinod Kumar Tonk S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Assistant Manager I.T. Department, SBBJ, Head Office Tilak Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur (Rajasthan) R/o 97 Doctors Colony, Ajmair Road Jaipur, police station Vaishali Nagar Jaipur, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) Permanent R/o Village Barhapur Main Market, police station Barhapur District Bijnor (U.P). ………………..Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttarkhand through Principal Secretary of Home Dehradun. 2. Smt. Priti Singhwal W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Tonk D/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Singhwal R/o Dashmeshpuri, Niranjanpur, Majra, Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun At present R/o P-23 Dhuleshvar Garden Opposite Ashish Hotel, C-Scheme, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ………….Opposite parties Shri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, with Ms. Deepa Arya, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A, present for the State. Shri R.P.Nautiyal, Advocate with Ms.Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate, present 2 for the respondent no.2 Priti Singhwal. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2695 of 2008, State vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Tonk relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 I.P.C, and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Patel Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Dehradun. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Smt. Priti Singhwal stated that the dispute relates to the matrimonial discord between the parties to matrimony. They further submitted that parties to matrimony have entered into compromise. It is stated that respondent no.2 Priti Sinhwal, now does not want to prosecute the petitioner Vinod Kumar Tonk. A Compounding Application No. 622 of 2011 has been moved jointly by the petitioner and respondent no.2 supported by affidavits of both the 3 parties. (4) Smt Priti Singhwal, (respondent no.2) is present in court identified by her counsel. She verified the fact that she has entered into compromise and she does not want to prosecute the petitioner. (5) In view of principle of law laid down in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4SCC page 675, in the above circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2695 of 2008, State vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Tonk relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 I.P.C, and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Patel Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (Compounding Application No. 622 of 2011 stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.16.06.2011 N.P 4