SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C482 No.344 of 2018 Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, AGA with Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Devendra Singh Negi, Advocate for respondent no.2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have sought to quash the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No.4058 of 2015, State vs. Amit Mahendra and others and further to quash the charge-sheet under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Thana Doiwala, on the basis of compromise between the parties. The applicant no.1-Mr. Amit Mahendra (through V.C.) and respondent no.2-Smt. Ashu Mahendra are present in Court duly identified by their respective counsel Mr. Siddhartha Singh and Mr. D.S. Negi, Advocates for the applicants and respondent no.2, respectively. The applicant no.2- Mahendra Kumar Mahendra has died. Affidavit of applicant nos.1, 3 and 5 in support of the compounding application has been placed on record and affidavit of respondent no.2 is also on record. During the pendency of the C482 application before this Court, the Compounding Application (Compromise Application) No.331 of 2026 has been filed on behalf of the parties. In the affidavit in support of the Compounding/Compromise Application, it has been stated by the respondent no.2 that marriage of applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 27.11.2003, out of the wedlock, a daughter was born on 16.12.2005. Since the parties have entered into compromise, consequently, applicant no.1 and respondent no.2, both are living together happily as husband and wife since last so many years as such, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the charge-sheet and summoning order are liable to the set aside and the proceedings of criminal case are liable to be quashed. Similar affidavits have been filed in support of the compounding application on behalf of applicant nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the State makes a statement that since it is a matrimonial dispute, hence there is no objection to the State. In view of the aforesaid that the matter emanates out of a matrimonial dispute and now the parties have filed the compounding application for putting a quietous to the matter and since the respondent no.2 and the applicant no.1 are living happy married life, hence, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the matter any further. Hence in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (2013) 11 SCC 497, B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677, the compounding application deserves to be allowed. The present the Compounding Application (Compromise Application) No.331 of 2026 is hereby allowed. The offences are permitted to be compounded. The summoning order, the charge- sheet and the entire proceedings emanating thereof in Case No.4058 of 2015, State vs. Amit Mahendra and others and further the charge- sheet under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Thana Doiwala are hereby quashed. The C482 application is, accordingly, disposed of. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (Siddhartha Sah, J.) Ravi 04.06.2026