C482/346/2011 of SMT. RAJKUMARI AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR
Parties
- Allahabad (U.P (PETITIONER)
- State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. Dehradun (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 2 detected)
2 case citations detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (2)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 346 of 2011
1.Smt. Rajkumari
W/o Braj Jeewan Lal Diwedi
2.Braj Jeewan Lal DiwediS/o Ram AshaiS/o Ram Ashai
Both R/o 74, Durga Nagar, Gali No. 4
P.S. Rasulpur, Firojabad (U.P.)
3.Nagendra Diwedi
S/o Ram Bhushan Diwedi
R/o 258-A, 3[rd] Floor, Prarggya apartment
Near Tammana Hospital, Tagore Town
Allahabad (U.P.)
………..…Petitioners
Versus
1.State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. Dehradun.
2.Rajesh Kumar Mishra S/o Radhey ShyamS/o Radhey Shyam
R/o Sadhu Bela Vebhav Apartment
Flat No. 3, Sapt Sarovar MargBhupatwala, P.S. Kotwali NagarDistrict HaridwarBhupatwala, P.S. Kotwali NagarDistrict Haridwar
....……Opposit Parties
Shri R.K.S. Verma, Advocate, present for the petitioners.Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State.Shri S.K. Shandilya, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2.
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Heard.
2.A compounding application has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, and the petitioners.
3.Also, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Same be taken on record.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 pleaded before this Court that the impugned criminal proceedings have arisen out of matrimonial dispute between Nidhi Mishra (daughter of Rajesh Kumar Mishra, respondent no. 2), and her husband Surendra Diwedi. Smt. Nidhi Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Mishra (respondent no. 2) both identified by their counsel, are present in court. They stated that they do not want to prosecute any of the accused in the criminal proceedings after amicable settlement between the parties to matrimony.
5.In the above circumstances, in view of principle of law laid down in B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana (2003) 4SCC page 675, the compounding application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, same is allowed. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is also allowed. Impugned proceedings of criminal case no. 435 of 2011,State vs. Rajkumari and others ,
relating to offence punishable under section 498A IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. (Urgency application no. 2424 of 2011, stands disposed of).
Parul
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)30.06.2011