IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 913/2007 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Murari Lal & Others …….Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another ……Respondents Mr. H.C. Pathak & Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocates, for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent no. 2. 12th October, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This is a matrimonial dispute and by way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicants have prayed quashing the order of cognizance dated 15.2.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Champawat in Criminal Complaint Case No. 99/2006 under Section 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC, Om Shankar Saxena v. Murari Lal & Others. 2. Complainant Om Shankar Saxena is the father of Poonam Saxena (bride), who wedded with Hariom Saxena (applicant no. 2) on 25.11.2001 as per Hindu rituals and ceremonies. Lateron, differences cropped up between them on the question of dowry. So, a complaint was filed against the applicants by the respondent no. 2 Om Shankar Saxena alleging offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On this complaint, the learned Magistrate passed the cognizance order, which is impugned in this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2 are present. Complainant is also present in person. 2 4. Today, a compounding application has been filed stating therein that the parties have entered into a compromise and all the dispute between them have been settled amicably, and now the complainant does not want to proceed with his complaint. The compounding application is supported by the affidavits of Om Shankar Saxena (complainant), Smt. Poonam Saxena (bride) and Hariom Saxena (husband/applicant no. 2) duly identified by their respective Counsel. 5. In view of the above, there remains nothing to be heard. Hence, the compounding application is allowed. Compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Consequently, the petition is allowed in terms of the compromise. The cognizance order dated 15.2.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Champawat in Criminal Complaint Case No. 99/2006, Om Shankar Saxena v. Murari Lal & Others, under Section 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC, is quashed accordingly. 6. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 12.10.2011 Prabodh