HIGH COURT OF UTTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 393 of 2002 1. R.P.Katiyar S/o late Shri Salik Ram Katiyar 2. Pradip Kumar Katiyar S/o Sri R.P>Katiyar 3. Manoj Katiyar S/o Sri R.P.katiyar 4. Smt. Sarojni Devi, W/o Sri R.P.Katiyar All residents of 7/M-15, Daboli Kanpur City (U.P.) …..Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Smt. Madhu Katiyar W/o Sri Pradeep Kumar Katiyar, D/o Sri Rajendra Bahadur Katiyar, R/o Type 4/3,Rajkiya Mahila Politechnic Campus Sudhowla district Dehradun. ….. Respondents Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 18.2.2002 in criminal case No.2490 of 2002 under sections 498- A/506 IPC, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun. It has been alleged in the petition that the marriage was solemnized between the applicant no.2- Pradeepmkumar Katiyar and Smt. Madhu Katiyar respondent No.2 in December 1994. A FIR was lodged as case crime No.74/2001 under section 498-A, 506 IPC at P.S. Sahaspur Vikasnagar, district Dehradun in which the allegations were made against the applicant with regard to cruelty and demand of dowry. The I.O. has submitted the chargesheet and the case was registered as criminal case No.2490 of 2002 State Vs.Pradeep Kumar Katiyar and others and the cognizance was taken against the applicants. Feeling aggrieved to the order of cognizance, the applicants have come up before this Court. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicants has filed certified copy of compromise application and the order dated 17.4.2004 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur in which it has been mentioned that the parties have stated living together and the suit was decided in terms of compromise. The compromise application indicates that the parties have to compromise case no.2490/2002 u/s 498 A/506 IPC pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Dehradun. No disputes at present persist between them and other family members. Considering that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and no useful purpose will be served to prolong the pendency of the above mentioned case. 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 this 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 Court.” Considering the above facts and the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the charge-sheet mentioned above and the proceedings in criminal case no. 2490 of 2002 are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed accordingly. (J. C. S. Rawat, J.) Dated:- 22.8..2005 MPS