LAWS(UTN)-2014-8-73

RAHUL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided On August 28, 2014
RAHUL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 495 of 2012, captioned as State v. Rahul Goyal, under Sections 498 -A, 323, 506, 294, 509 of IPC, Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and 67/72 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, A charge -sheet was submitted against the applicant and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 323, 506, 294, 509 of IPC, Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and 67/72 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. Accused -applicant was summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offences. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner.

(2.) A compounding application being CRMA No. 1280 of 2014 has been filed by the parties, to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. The terms of settlement are indicated in para 9 of the compounding application. The compounding application is supported by affidavits of Smt. Priti Goyal (respondent No. 2, victim -wife) and the petitioner Rahul Goyal (husband). Respondent No. 2 Smt. Preeti Goyal @ Priti Bisht is present in person, duly identified by her counsel Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Advocate. Petitioner Rahul Goyal, is also present, duly identified by his counsel Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate. They stated that both of them (husband and wife) have decided to have separation from each other, for which they will file suit for divorce with the mutual consent. Respondent No. 2 also stated that she is not interested in prosecuting the applicant in the present case. In other words, respondent No. 2 (the person aggrieved) has exonerated the present applicant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties drew the attention of this Court towards the ruling of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as below: