IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 891 of 2006 1. Vineet Kumar, S/o Late Jagdish 2. Mukesh, S/o Late Jagdish 3. Dinesh, S/o Late Jagdish 4. Smt. Jaiwati W/o Late Jagdish 5. Kamlesh, W/o Dinesh 6. Mahesh Chand, S/o Kapil Singh All R/o Village Katarpur P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar …......Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) 2. Smt. Archana W/o Vineet Kumar R/o Village Bhadrabad P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar ....……Respondents Shri K.S. Verma, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is delay condonation application no. 676 of 2011, for condonation of delay in filing the recall/ restoration application No. 459 of 2011, for 2 restoration of criminal miscellaneous application (C482) no. 891 of 2006, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 06.08.2010. 2. Heard and perused the affidavit. 3. Delay condonation application is allowed, Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. 4. In view of principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntax vs. Union of India (2007) AIR SCW 1971, restoration application is allowed on the condition that the petitioner shall argue the case on merits of the petition today itself. Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is restored on that condition. 5. Heard on petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., whereby proceedings of criminal case no. 4096 of 2006, State vs. Vineet Kumar and others, relating to offences punishable under section 452, 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are sought to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded 3 that the impugned proceedings are abuse of process of law due to matrimonial discord between the complainant Archana (respondent no. 2) and petitioner no. 1 Vineet (husband). It is contended that after obtaining orders under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the impugned criminal proceedings are initiated just to harass the petitioners to settle score with the husband of the complainant. It is also pointed out that from the FIR itself it is clear that there is no specific role assigned to the petitioners. Even the date of the incident is not mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that during pendency of this petition parties to matrimony have already settled their dispute in November 2010. Copy of compromise filed on 24.11.2010, in the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C., is on the record. Also, the order dated 25.11.2010, passed by Judge Family Court, Haridwar, in suit no. 61 of 2010, verifies said fact (i.e. compromise). 7. In the above circumstances, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., deserves to be allowed. The petition is allowed. Proceedings of criminal miscellaneous case no. 4096 of 2006, State vs. Vineet Kumar and others, relating to offences punishable under section 452, 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 4 1961, Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar are herebay quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 29.06.2011