IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 434/2007 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Smt. Zarina …….Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another ……Respondents Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. None for the private respondent no. 2. 29th November, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the prayer has been made to quash the summoning order dated 1.3.2007 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 3413/2006, Mohd. Usman v. Chand Miya & Others, under Section 323, 324, 506 IPC pending before Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 2. On the previous date i.e. on 21.11.2011, the parties were directed to appear in person before this Court on the next date of listing i.e. today. Smt. Zarina, the applicant petitioner, is present in person along with her Counsel, while neither the private respondent no. 2 Mohd. Usman nor his Counsel has turned up before this Court. On the previous date of listing, Mr. Arora, Advocate, was present on behalf of the private respondent no. 2, and the said order was passed in his presence. 3. In the circumstances, this Court has given hearing to learned Counsel for the applicant petitioner and learned Brief Holder for the State. Also perused the papers on record. 2 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant petitioner apprised this Court that Smt. Zarina is mother-in-law of Mohd. Usman (private respondent no. 2). The latter is an Advocate, practicing in Roorkee. He was wedded with Smt. Gulshan Aara, daughter of Smt. Zarina. Various litigations between Smt. Gulshan Aara and Mohd. Usman were pending before the courts below for the offences of Section 498A IPC, 125/127 CrPC and one for the offence of Section 406 IPC. Learned Counsel for the applicant petitioner showed the certified copy of the order dated 2.9.2011, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Case No. 1537/2011, titled as Smt. Gulshan Aara v. Mohd. Usman, which reveals that the parties have entered into compromise for the offence of Section 406 IPC as per the provisions contained under Section 320 CrPC. So, that case has now been dropped against Mohd. Usman. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant petitioner also showed certified copy of the statement of Mohd. Usman, which he deposed on 11.7.2011 in Miscellaneous Case No. 71/2009 under Section 127 CrPC. It adverts that Mohd. Usman entered into a compromise and agreed to take back the case, titled as Mohd. Usman v. Chand Miyan & Others, under Section 323, 324, 506 IPC, which was initiated by him against Smt. Zarina and others. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant petitioner contends that the said case no. 3413/2006 was, in fact, initiated by Mohd. Usman as a counterblast to the litigations launched against him by his wife. I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel. Moreover, the matter has been compromised between the parties. Hence, the instant litigation cannot be permitted to continue, as the same will amount to abuse of the process of court. 3 7. In view of the above as well as for the reason of non-compliance of the directions of this Court by the private respondent, mentioned supra, the petition is allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 1.3.2007 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 3413/2006, Mohd. Ussman v. Chand Miya & Others, under Section 323, 324, 506 IPC pending before Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, are hereby quashed. 8. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 29.11.2011 Prabodh