IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 596 of 2010 Manish Kumar Dhondiyal S/o Sri B.L. Dhondiyal R/o J.G. –1/28 B –Vikashpuri, P.S. Vikashpuri, New Delhi Presently residing at Havant, 12 / 13 North Street, Post –91 P.X., London (U.K.). ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Home Dehradun. 2. Smt. Pallavi Dhondiyal D/o late Sri S.C. Kukreti R/o 34-35, Banjarawala T.H.D.C. Colony, Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate, along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. None present for respondent No. 2, even after being personally served. Earlier, Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate, and Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate, represented respondent No. 2, but today they did not appear, even in the revised call. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the 2 petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1518 of 2009, State Vs. Manish Dhondiyal, pending in the court of First Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun 2) Heard. 3) Brief facts of the case are that complainant Pallavi Dhondiyal (respondent No. 2) got married to the petitioner Manish Kumar Dhondiyal on 08.07.2004, following the Hindu rites. The petitioner was in the job in London. On 01.08.2004, he took his wife (respondent No. 2) to London, where the two lived together till 05.06.2007. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 (wife) returned back to India. She got lodged first information report, after obtaining orders under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. In the complainant / first information report she alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for non- fulfillment of demand of dowry by her husband. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the petitioner and his parents in the criminal case, due to the matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband. Apart from this, attention of this court is drawn to Annexure –5 to the petition, which is copy of the compromise deed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. In said 3 compromise the parties have agreed that they will withdraw all the criminal proceedings against each other. This document supported by affidavit remains uncontroverted, as no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, even after opportunity being given by this court. As such, the contents of affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner Manish Kumar Dhondiyal with this petition, remained uncontroverted. Another document on record shows that keeping in mind the law laid down in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, vide this court’s order dated 05.05.2010, passed in Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 671 of 2008, another proceeding initiated by Smt. Pallavi Dhondiyal (respondent No. 2) were quashed after learned counsel for the parties verified the compromise entered between the parties. Another document, Annexure –7 to the petition, shows that vide order dated 06.02.2010, the maintenance proceedings also got terminated in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, as the wife did not press the proceedings further. 5) In the above circumstances, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Impugned proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1518 of 2009 (New No. 1836 of 2010), State Vs. Manish Dhondiyal, pending in the court of Second Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun (arisen out of Crime No. 230 of 2007), police station Patel Nagar, relating to offence 4 punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed. (Urgency Application No. 1863 of 2011 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 16, 2011. H. Negi 5