1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application no. 1151 of 2011 1. Naveen Kumar, S/o Shri Sadhuram 2. Sadhuram, S/o Not known 3. Smt.Kailashi @ Kela Devi W/o Shri Sadhuram 4. Smt. Reeta, D/o Sadhuram W/o Suraj Prakash 5. Mahendra, S/o Sadhuram 6. Rachana, W/o Mahendra All R/o Indri Laton Wali Gali,Pani ki tanki ke paas P.S. Indri, District Karnal, Haryana …..…Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Dehradun Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Dimple, D/o Ramesh R/o Opposite Railway Station Haridwar near Sachin Hotel, presently R/o Bharat tailors ke samne wali gali Bangali Mod Kankhal Pargana Jwalapur Tehsil and District Haridwar ……….Respondents Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2 (For short Cr.P.C..), the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 22.10.2011, passed by III Fast Track Court/ Additional Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in criminal revision no. 350 of 2005, whereby said court has dismissed the revision. 3. Brief facts, of the case, are that respondent no. 2 Smt. Dimple got married to respondent Naveen Kumar (petitioner no. 1) on 07.02.2004. It appears that after the year 2005, matrimonial relations between the two got soured, and they started litigating in the courts. One of the litigation pertains to section 125 Cr.P.C., filed by the respondent no. 2, another one was divorce petition, which too was filed by the wife (respondent no. 2). She (respondent no. 2) further moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., on which the Magistrate, vide its order dated 08.12.2005, directed to register the crime relating to demand of dowry and harassment. 4. Attention of this Court is drawn to the fact that on petition of respondent no. 2 (dimple), decree of divorce has already passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hardwar, on 22.07.2011(i.e., after the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., was 3 allowed by the Magistrate). Attention of this Court is further drawn to the fact that the parties to matrimony have already entered into compromise, and they do not want to litigate in the court. In the circumstances, it is pleaded that no useful purpose would be served by registering the case under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 22.10.2011, passed by III Fast Track Court/ Additional Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in criminal revision no. 350 of 2005, shows that the counsel for the revisionist himself made a statement before said court that he does not want to prosecute the revision. It is further submitted that in the interest of justice the order passed by the Magistrate and revisional court, are liable to be quashed, as parties to the matrimony have already settled their dispute amicably. 6. In the above circumstances, in view of principle of law laid down in B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana (2003) 4SCC page 675, this Court is of the view that petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition under sectioon 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The 4 impugned order dated 08.12.2005, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, in criminal miscellaneous application no. 117 of 2005, under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., is hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 21.12.2011