Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 166 (UTT)

Mohit Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-04-12

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. A First Information Report has been lodged by respondent No.2 which has been registered as Case Crime No.141 of 2014 under Sections 498A/323 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Cantt. Sadar, Dehradun against her husband and in-laws. Present applicant and respondent No.2/complainant are husband and wife respectively. 2. As per first information report, the applicant was married to the respondent No.2 on 09.10.2011 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, there is a matrimonial discord. 3. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against present applicant under Sections 323/498A of IPC. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance in the matter and issued summon to the present applicant. Hence, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that now the dispute between applicant and respondent No.2 has been amicably settled and respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce before the Principal Judge, Dehradun on 09.10.2015. 5. Both applicant and respondent No.2 are present in person before this Court who have been identified by their respective counsel. Respondent No.2 has given a statement at the bar that she does not want to proceed with the matter as they have entered into a compromise. 5. As of now, an application has been filed on behalf of applicant and respondent No.2 alongwith their personal affidavits praying that proceedings in Criminal Trial No.3610 of 2014 be quashed as the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties. 6. Considering the nature of offence and the fact that the complainant/respondent No.2 does not want to proceed further, it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another reported in 2012(10)SCC 303 wherein the correctness of the earlier decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI and another reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677 and in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 have been reiterated. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings in Criminal Trial No.3610 of 2014 (Old No.740 of 2014) State Vs. CBI and another reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677 and in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 have been reiterated. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and proceedings in Criminal Trial No.3610 of 2014 (Old No.740 of 2014) State Vs. Mohit Rana pending before learned Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun are hereby quashed.