PREETI GOEL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the summoning order dated 15.06.2011 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1289 of 2011, captioned as State v. Smt. Preeti Goyal and another, under Section 294 of IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. A charge -sheet was submitted against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC. Initially, an FIR was lodged against the applicant at the instance of respondent No. 2 (husband). A compounding application being CRMA No. 1289 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 Smt. Priti Goyal (petitioner -wife) and the respondent No. 2 Rahul Goyal (husband). Respondent No. 2 Rahul Goel is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. M.K. Goel, Advocate. Petitioner Smt. Preeti Goel, is also present, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Advocate. Respondent No. 2 says that he is not interested in prosecuting the applicant, in as much as, they have decided to part ways of life and they have also settled other disputes pending in this Court.

(2.) ALTHOUGH Section 294 of IPC is a non -compoundable offence within the Scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C., but the fact remains that it is a dispute between the married couple, in which the first information report was lodged by the husband against his wife. The question, which arises for consideration this' Court is - whether the complainant should be permitted to compound the offence alleged against the applicant or not?

(3.) THE reply to the question, posed by this Court in para No. 3 of this Judgment, therefore, is in the affirmative. Otherwise also, it will be a futile exercise if proceeding of the criminal case against the applicant are kept pending when the parties have settled their disputes amicably.