MAYAN PAL Vs. SUNITA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the cognizance order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in Criminal Case No. 1384 of 2007 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 780 of 2014 (Old No. 1384 of 2007), captioned as Smt. Sunita vs. Mayan Pal Verma, under Section 506 of IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

(2.) THE applicant was summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC in a criminal complaint case filed by the respondent. A compounding application being CRMA No. 1435 of 2014 has been filed by the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is supported by the affidavits of both the parties. Respondent (wife) is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate. She says that the dispute between her and her husband has been settled amicably. They have decided to live together as husband and wife. Applicant Mayan Pal (husband) is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate.

(3.) THE offence punishable under Sections 506 of IPC is compoundable offence within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question, which arises for consideration of this Court is - whether the complainant -wife should be permitted to compound the offence under Section 506 of IPC or not?