THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 4 of 2009 Virendar Bhasin S/o Late Shri Badri Nath Bhasin & others …… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…. Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application No. 245 of 2008 Km. Amita Bhasin D/o Late Shri Badri Nath Bhasin …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…. Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application No. 106 of 2008 Manoj Bhasin and others …… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…. Respondents With Criminal Misc. Application No. 794 of 2008 Smt. Rajkumari Bhasin …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ..…. Respondents Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.2. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. By this common judgment, these petitions are being disposed of together as the facts and matters involved in these petitions are of similar nature. 3. Petition Nos. 794 of 2008, 245 of 2008 and 4 of 2009 are arising out of the chargesheet filed by the police against the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the cognizance order 2 passed by the learned Magistrate u/s 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act in these petitions. Whereas Petition No. 106 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioners against the respondent challenging the cognizance order passed by the trial court u/s 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the complaint filed by the wife Smt. Dipasha Bhasin against her husband and others which is numbered as Complaint Case No. 41 of 2008. 4. The aforesaid chargesheet, cognizance order and complaint have been challenged in these petitions. 5. During the course of the hearing of these petitions, the parties have filed the compromise before this Court in C482 No. 4 of 2009 by way of affidavit. In para 4 and 5 of the CRMA No. 440 of 2009, it has been alleged that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court and they will not proceed with the proceedings in Case Crime No. 128 of 2007 and Complaint Case No. 41 of 2008. Both the parties have verified the compromise before the Registrar General. They have further stated that the parties have entered into amicable settlement outside the court and there is no further dispute between the parties. 6. Considering that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement, no useful purpose will be served to prolong the pendency 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. 7. 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 cognizance order dated 11/03/2008, proceedings of Criminal Case 3 No.406 of 2008 and Complaint Case No. 41 of 2008 are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the cognizance order dated 11/03/2008, proceedings of Criminal Case No.406 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 128 of 2007 and Complaint Case No. 41 of 2008 are hereby quashed in view of the compromise arrived in between the parties. 8. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. 9. All the applications are disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 28.04.2009 Shiv