SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482 No.293 of 2024 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kapruwan, Advocate for the applicants. 2. Mr. Vipul Painuly and Ms. Shweta Badola Dobhal, B.H.s’ for the State. 3. Mr. Krishna Mohan Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.2. 4. The present C482 application is filed with the prayer to challenge the charge sheet dated 10.10.2015 filed pursuant to FIR dated 10.02.2015 registered as FIR No.02 of 2015, under Sections 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered with Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 28.05.2016, passed by learned Ist Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.1972 of 2016, State Vs. Paramveer Singh and others, on the ground that the parties have now entered into a settlement. 5. Along with present C482 application, a joint compounding application is filed by the applicants and respondent no.2, which is supported by their respective affidavits. 6. It is contended in the compounding application by the parties that they have entered into amicable settlement and particularly respondent no.2 does not want to pursue with the present case, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. 7. Today applicant no.1/husband (Paramveer Singh), was present physically, while applicant no.2 (Mahaveer Singh), applicant no.3 (Kiran Rani) and applicant no.4 (Smt. Narotma Devi) and respondent no.2/wife (Smt. Manju Devi @ Hina Singh) were present before this Court, through video conferencing, duly identified by their respective Advocates. On interaction, it is contended by respondent no.2 that she does not want to prolong the matter any further and want to settle the dispute between her and the applicants. 8. Respondent no.2, however, made a categorical statement before this Court as well that she does not want to pursue with the criminal case and want to put an end to all the dispute between the parties and for that purpose a joint compounding application has been filed as referred above. 9. I have gone through the compounding application and the pleadings made by the applicants in C482 application. 10. This Court is convinced that once the parties have decided to settle their dispute amicably, particularly matrimonial case, it would not be appropriate to direct them to join the trial which would ultimately result into nothing but acquittal and would amount to be a futile exercise. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that in view of the matrimonial dispute, there is no serious opposition from the side of the State, if the matter is settled through compromise. 12. The Apex Court in the case of “B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana” reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C., Page 675’, has permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences with the permission of Court, especially in matrimonial disputes. 13. Following the aforesaid ratio, present compounding application (IA/1/2024) is allowed. The offences between the parties are permitted to be compounded. As a result, entire proceedings of charge sheet dated 10.10.2015 filed pursuant to FIR dated 10.02.2015 registered as FIR No.02 of 2015, under Sections 498-A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered with Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 28.05.2016, passed by learned Ist Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.1972 of 2016, State Vs. Paramveer Singh and others, are hereby quashed along with the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 14. C482 application stands disposed-off in the aforesaid terms. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.03.2025 SK