Aleem Alias Muhammad Aleem And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have challenged the charge-sheet dated 08.06.2022 arising out of FIR No.228 of 2021 dated 01.10.2021 registered with police station Kaladhungi, District Nainital and the summoning/ cognizance order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No.2385 of 2022 State Vs. Aleem and Others, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 328, 354, 504, 506 and 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as the entire proceedings of the above criminal case.

Along with the present C482 application, a joint compounding application (IA/1/2024) is filed duly supported by separate affidavits by applicants and respondent No.2-complainant.

In the compounding application, it has been stated by the parties that the applicants and respondent No.2, in the presence of eminent persons of locality and family members and looking towards their future, have resolved their dispute amicably. It is also submitted that the applicant No.1-husband Aleem @ Muhammad Aleem and respondent No.2-wife Tamanna Ansari have now got separated by a divorce agreement as per the Muslim Law and it has also been agreed between them that she would compound the offences of FIR No.228 of 2021 on the basis of compromise.

Applicants-Aleem @ Muhammad Aleem and Rashid @ Mohammad Rashid and respondent No.2-Tamanna Ansari are present before this Court, who are duly identified by their respective counsels. On interaction, they have ratified the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of compounding application. Applicant No.1-husband Aleem @ Muhammad Aleem and respondent No.2-wife Tamanna Ansari have also stated that they have dissolved their marriage by way of divorce as per the Muslim Law by entering into Talaknama dated 29.05.2024 (Annexure No.5 to the C482 application).

Learned State Counsel, per contra, has raised an objection that the offences punishable under Sections 328 and 354 IPC, are not compoundable.

In view of the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer petition (Criminal) No.115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, criminal proceedings can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that matter has been settled between the parties amicably and parties are interested to restore peace and harmony between them.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the compounding application as well as the documents available on record, this Court is of the opinion that once the parties have entered into a compromise and they have settled their dispute amicably, there would be no useful purpose for referring the applicants to Court to face the trial. It would be a futile exercise. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, nothing remains to be decided in the present matter.

Accordingly, compounding application (IA/1/2024) is allowed. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2385 of 2022 State Vs. Aleem and Others, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 328, 354, 504, 506 and 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed. Resultantly, charge-sheet dated 08.06.2022 and FIR No.228 of 2021 dated 01.10.2021 registered with police station Kaladhungi, District Nainital, stand quashed.

Accordingly, the present C482 application is disposed of, in terms of the compromise.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.