IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Compounding Application No.148 of 2009 In Criminal Misc. Application No. 699 of 2008 Smt. Nirmala Mishra and others …… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…. Respondents Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, G.A. for the respondent No.1/State. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, G.A. for the respondent No.1/State. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. This petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet submitted by the police before the trial court and cognizance order dated 29/08/2008 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No.3706 of 2008 u/s 498-A & 323 I.P.C. and ¾ of D.P.Act, P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital. 3. During the course of the hearing of this petition, both the parties have filed the compounding application No.148 of 2009 wherein it has been alleged that they have amicably settled their dispute outside the court. Both the parties have filed affidavit alongwith the compounding application before this court. The learned counsel for the parties have stated before the Court that they verify this fact. They have further stated that the parties have entered into amicable settlement outside the court and there is no further dispute between the parties. 4. Considering that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement, no useful purpose will be served to prolong the pendency 2 of the case. This is also the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2003 SCC (Cri) p/848. 5. Considering the above facts and the principles laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the view that the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute outside the Court, the further proceedings of Criminal Case No.3706 of 2008 u/s 498-A & 323 I.P.C. and ¾ of D.P.Act is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the chargesheet, cognizance order and the proceedings are hereby quashed in view of the compromise 6. It was pointed out that Jeevan Chandra Tiwari, the husband of respondent No. 2 Smt. Tanuja Tiwari is not a party to this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and the compromise has taken place in between the parties before this Court. Jeevan Chandra Tiwari has also filed compounding application before this Court. It is a settled position of law if the benefit has been given to the applicants, the other non- applicants being on the same footing are also entitled to get the same benefit. In view of the above preposition of law, the proceedings against the husband Jeewan Chandra Tiwari are also liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 13.02.2009 Shiv