IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 322 of 2006 Ajay Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Nihal Chand Agarwal R/o Meena Bazar, Canal Road Banvasa, P.S. Banvasa District-Champawat. …………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Radha Devi D/o Naresh Kumar Agarwal W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal R/o Village Bidhora, Majhola P.S. Nanakmatta District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. ALONGWITH Criminal Misc. App. No. 654 of 2005 1. Gulzari Lal S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal 2. Smt. Ram Bai W/o Shri Gulzari Lal R/o Village-Banvasa Bazar P.S. Banvasa, District Champawat. …………..…Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Radha Devi D/o Naresh Kumar Agarwal W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal R/o Village Bidhora, Majhola P.S. Nanakmatta District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. 2 Criminal Misc. App. No. 692 of 2005 Nihal Chand Agarwal & others. …………..…Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Radha Devi D/o Naresh Kumar Agarwal W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal R/o Village Bidhora, Majhola P.S. Nanakmatta District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. Criminal Misc. App. No. 764 of 2005 Ajay Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Nihal Chand Agarwal R/o Meena Bazar, Canal Road Banvasa, P.S. Banvasa District Champawat. …………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Radha Devi D/o Naresh Kumar Agarwal W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal R/o Village Bidhar, Majhola P.S. Nanakmatta District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. Criminal Misc. App. No. 303 of 2006 1. Gulzari Lal S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal 2. Smt. Ram Bai W/o Shri Gulzari Lal R/o Village-Banvasa Bazar 3 P.S. Banvasa, District Champawat. …………..…Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Radha Devi D/o Naresh Kumar Agarwal W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal R/o Village Bidhar, Majhola P.S. Nanakmatta District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. AND Criminal Misc. App. No. 324 of 2006 Nihal Chand Agarwal & others. …………..…Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Radha Devi D/o Naresh Kumar Agarwal W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal R/o Village Bidhar, Majhola P.S. Nanakmatta District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. Shri S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri S.C. Bhatt, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 4 2. All these petitions, relate to the criminal cases arising out of same matrimonial dispute, and are being taken up together for their disposal. By means of these petitions, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 1470 of 2005, Smt. Radha Devi Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, relating to offence punishable under Section 403 I.P.C., and criminal case No. 1436 of 2005, State Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and one punishable under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that parties to the matrimony have entered into compromise on 11.06.2007, during the pendency of these petitions. It is further pointed out that after the parties to the matrimony entered into compromise, they have sought decree of divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A certified copy of the judgment and order dated 24.04.2008, passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in divorce petition No. 120 of 2007, is filed as annexure-2 (annexed in petition No. 322 of 2006) to the supplementary affidavit, filed during the pendency of these petitions, which shows that the parties to the matrimony have 5 already separated by decree of divorce. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No. 2-Radha Devi (complainant) has already got remarried after obtaining decree of divorce. Copy of compromise, which is filed as annexure-1 (annexed in petition No. 322 of 2006) to the supplementary affidavit, filed during the pendency of the petition, shows that the complainant had already agreed to withdraw the criminal cases. 4. In the above circumstances, in view of principle of law laid down in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, the proceedings of criminal cases, are liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, proceedings of criminal case No. 1470 of 2005, Smt. Radha Devi Vs. Ajay Agarwal, wherein the petitioners have been summoned relating to offence punishable under Sections 403 I.P.C. and criminal case No. 1436 of 2005, State Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and one punishable under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, are hereby quashed. 6 6. Petitions, accordingly, stand allowed. (Misc. application No. 252 of 2010, stands disposed of). Dt:05.04.2010 Sweta (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)