IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 306 of 2003 Mohd. Waheed Khan & Others. …….. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others. …….. Respondents Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A for respondent nos 1, 2 & 4. Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A for respondent nos 1, 2 & 4. Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent no.3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the cognizance order as well as the chargesheet related to case crime no. 67/1997 filed under Section 498-A of the IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. On the basis of the F.I.R. recorded on 23.01.1997, chargesheet was filed against the petitioners before the court concerned and thereafter cognizance was taken by the magistrate concerned. 4. The main ground which is given in the petition for quashment of the chargesheet as well as the cognizance order is that the complainant-Smt. Gulshan and her husband has executed a compromise on 27.9.1997 and they are following the terms and conditions as enumerated in the agreement which has been filed alongwith the petition (Annexure-10 to the petition). In the said agreement, it is specifically mentioned that the lady/complainant has accepted a ‘meher’ or rupees fifty thousand in presence of the witnesses and she has also stated that she did not want to prosecute the accused petitioners and would co-operate for seeking the discharge of the petitioners in the trial of the case. 5. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. JT 2003(3) SC 277:- “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others 2000(3)SCC p/693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extent which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about re-approchment are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different Courts.” 6. In the case in hand, the dispute is of matrimonial in nature and the parties have come to a compromise on 27.9.1997. Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. G.S. Negi has stated before the Court that the contents of the compromise are still valid and they verify this fact before this Court. 7. In view of the above and having regard to the facts stated and the legal position explained above, I am of the view that since, the parties have entered into a settlement by way of compromise, no useful purpose will be served to prolong the pendency of the above mentioned case. 8. Considering the above facts and the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Consequently, cognizance order as well as the chargesheet related to case crime no. 67/1997 filed under Section 498-A of the IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 27.11.2008 V.K