AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This is delay condonation application No. 676 of 2011, for condonation of delay in filing the recall/ restoration application No. 459 of 2011, for restoration of criminal miscellaneous application (C482) No. 891 of 2006, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 06.08.2010.
1 Heard and perused the affidavit.
2 Delay condonation application is allowed, Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.
In view of principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntax v. Union of India AIR (2007) SCW 1971, restoration application is allowed on the condition that the Petitioner shall argue the case on merits of the petition today itself. Petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure ., is restored on that condition.
Heard on petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure ., whereby proceedings of criminal case No. 4096 of 2006, State v. Vineet Kumar and others, relating to offences punishable u/s 452, 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC, and one punishable u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are sought to be quashed.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners pleaded that the impugned proceedings are abuse of process of law due to matrimonial discord between the complainant Archana (Respondent No. 2) and Petitioner No. 1 Vineet (husband). It is contended that after obtaining orders u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure ., the impugned criminal proceedings are initiated just to harass the Petitioners to settle score with the husband of the complainant. It is also pointed out that from the FIR itself it is clear that there is no specific role assigned to the Petitioners. Even the date of the incident is not mentioned. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that during pendency of this petition parties to matrimony have already settled their dispute in November 2010. Copy of compromise filed on 24.11.2010, in the proceedings u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure ., is on the record. Also, the order dated 25.11.2010, passed by Judge Family Court, Haridwar, in suit No. 61 of 2010, verifies said fact (i.e. compromise).
In the above circumstances, this petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure ., deserves to be allowed. The petition is allowed. Proceedings of criminal miscellaneous case No. 4096 of 2006, State v. Vineet Kumar and others, relating to offences punishable u/s 452, 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC, and one punishable u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar are herebay quashed.