Ramesh Dogra vs State of Uttarakhand

Prafulla C.Pant, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and the complainant/respondent No. 2.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.304 of 2005, Smt. Sunila alias Sapna v. Ramesh Dogra, relating to offences punishable under Sections 376, 496 IPC, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate - II, Dehradun.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2 pleaded before this Court that petitioner and respondent No.2, are husband and wife. Attention of this Court, is drawn to para-6 of the criminal complaint, filed by respondent No.2, in which she has admitted having married to the petitioner. In the court, when it is enquired from Sunila alias Sapna, she told that she had two children out of the wedlock. She stated in court, in person, that she does not want to prosecute the petitioner.

Para-14 of the criminal complaint itself shows that she had also sought maintenance from her husband u/s 125 Cr.P.C. after the matrimonial discord with the petitioner, But in said case also parties are said to have entered into compromise. Today, before this Court, she states that now after reconciliation with the petitioner if the criminal complaint is allowed to proceed further, it would spoil the family life of respondent No.2 and her husband (petitioner) and their children.

A joint written compromise has also been filed before this Court with compromise application No. 128A of 2010.

In the above circumstances, in view of the principle of law laid down in B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C, is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.304 of 2005, Smt. Sunila alias Sapna v. Ramesh Dogra, relating to offences punishable under Sections 376 and 496 IPC, pending the court of Special Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (Application No.128 of 2010, stands disposed of).