SUMIT SINGH BINDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the charge -sheet dated 14.05.2012, summoning order dated 29.05.2012 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 735 of 2012 captioned as State v. Sumit Bindra 8s others, under Sections 498 -A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Annexure No. 3), pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 2nd, Dehradun. A charge -sheet was submitted against the applicants and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A compounding application is filed by the parties through their counsels Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal and Ms. Anjali Noliyal, Advocates, to show that the parties have buried their differences and settled their disputes amicably. The compounding application is supported by the affidavits of husband Sumit Singh Bindra (applicant No. 1) and wife Smt. Indraj Arora (respondent No. 2).

(2.) ALTHOUGH the parties are not present in person before this Court but they have filed the affidavits that the dispute has been resolved with the intervention of elderly members of the family. The terms of settlement are reduced to writing in the form of annexure No. 7. Estranged Couple decided to part their ways of life. Annexure No. 7 is duly identified by the parties in the presence of witnesses and their respective counsels. It is the statement of learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that she is not interested in prosecuting the applicants and therefore, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be decided in terms of compromise and the criminal proceedings pending against the applicants be directed to be quashed to secure the ends of Justice. Learned counsel for the applicants affirmed that the dispute has amicably been resolved by the couple and the terms of settlement have been reduced to writing in the form of settlement -deed (annexure -7).

(3.) THE Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non -compoundable offences in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, : (2003)4 SCC 675 and has held as below: