Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsels for the applicants as well as the learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. This Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging the chargesheet and the subsequent summoning order dated 21.9.2002 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun as well as the proceedings initiated in Criminal Case No. 1994 of 2002 State v. Narendra Saini and Ors. pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
3. Brief facts of case are that respondent No. 4 who is married to the present applicant No. 1 Narendra Saini, as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 27.4.2001. Thereafter, an F.I.R. was lodged by the wife at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun u/s 406 I.P.C. alleging that her "stridhan" is not being returned to her. Subsequently, an investigation was made and chargesheet was filed by the police in which offence was made out by the police against the applicants. Applicant No. 1 is husband, Applicant No. 2 is father in law, Applicant No. 3 is mother-in-law and Applicant No. 4 is sister-in-law of respondent No. 4/complainant Smt. Sunita Saini. All the same, apart from the said F.I.R. another F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No. 4 u/s 498A/323/504/501 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Dalanwala where again a chargesheet was filed and summons were issued against the present applicants in Criminal Case No. 816 of 2002. However, in the said case i.e. Criminal Case No. 816 of 2002 respondent No. 4 has given a statement before the Court that there has been a compromise between the parties and subsequent to that compromise by mutual consent a decree of divorce has also been granted. She has further stated that she has received all her "stridhan" and one time alimony.
4. Inspite of the service made to respondent No. 4, she has not put in appearance before this Court. Statement has been made before this Court by the counsels for the parties that respondent No. 4 has been divorced by mutual consent and she has received her "stridhan" and therefore nothing further remains. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served if the criminal case remains pending against the applicants. In case the criminal case is allowed to remain pending against the applicants, it will only amount to an abuse of process of law, particularly, in view of the guidelines and parameters drawn by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.
5. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, all the proceedings initiated against the present applicants in Criminal Case No. 1994 of 2002 u/s 406 I.P.C. are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside.
6. The present C-482 application is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
7. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
