C482/251/2009 of SMT. KAMLA CHAUHAN AND ORS Vs STATE OF UTTARKAHAND AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 251 of 2009

1.Smt. Kamla Chauhan

W/o Sri Bhagat Singh Chauhan

2.Bhagat Singh ChauhanS/o Late Mehtab Singh ChauhanS/o Late Mehtab Singh Chauhan

Both R/o Ashok Nagar, Roorkee

District Hardwar

3.Smt. Prema Negi

W/o Shri Rajendra Singh Negi

4.Rajendra Singh NegiS/o Sri Sher Singh NegiS/o Sri Sher Singh Negi

Both R/o Nehru Colony, Near Him Palace HotelDharampur, Dehradun, District DehradunDharampur, Dehradun, District Dehradun

…..…Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Uttarakhand through Home Secretary Civil Secretariat, Dehradun Civil Secretariat, Dehradun

2. Smt. Sunita Negi @ Sumitra Negi

W/o Shri Deepak Negi

D/o Late Gaje Singh Gusain, at present residing at Ashok Nagar Roorkee, District Hardwar

……….Respondents

Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for the petitioners.Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State.

Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2.

Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Heard.

2.By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 383 of 2009, State vs. Deepak Negi and others, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 498A IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Roorkee, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Hardwar.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 pleaded that parties to matrimony have entered into compromise, and respondent no. 2 Sunita Negi @ Sumitra Negi does not want to prosecute the petitioners.

4.A compounding application no. 44 of 2012, is moved supported by the affidavits of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2.

5.Respondent no. 2 Sunita Negi @ Sumitra Negi identified by her counsel Mr. B.M.Pingal, Advocate, is present in Court. She stated that after amicable settlement with her husband, she wants to

live with him, and as such does not want to prosecute the petitioners who are relatives of her husband.

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.

7.The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed, and proceedings of criminal case no. 383 of 2009, State vs. Deepak Negi and others, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 498A IPC,and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Roorkee, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Hardwar, are hereby quashed against all the petitioners. (Compounding application no. 44 of 2012, stands disposed of).

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

14.03.2012