JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar and Sri Rajiv Gupta Advocates for the applicant, Sri Anoop Trivedi Advocate for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1088 of 2000-State v. Chandra Prakash and others, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. It is a matrimonial dispute between the contesting parties which led to filing of a number of criminal cases. The present application was filed in respect of the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. An application has been filed to bring on record that during pendency of this case, the parties have settled the dispute outside the court and an agreement deed has been made between the parties. They have decided to withdraw all the criminal and civil cases pending in different courts including the present one. The mutual settlement between the parties have also been reduced in writing and duly verified before the Public Notary at Meerut in Criminal Case No. 4985 of 2003-Meenakshi Gupta v. Anil Prakash, pending before the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. A copy of the said settlement has been annexed with this application. In view of the settlement, it is prayed that the entire proceedings in case No. 1088 of 2000-State v. Chandra Prakash and Ors., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut be quashed.
3. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Josh and Ors v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2003 (51) A.L.R. (S.C.), 222, it has been held that in matrimonial disputes resulting in initiation of the criminal cases implicating not only the husband but the entire family members, where a subsequent settlement or dispute take place between the warring parties, has ruled that mere technicality that the offence involved is non compoundable should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the proceedings by the High Court in exercise of inherent powers. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Jitendra Raj Pal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2001. All India Judicial Interpretation of Crime, 353. In the said case it was held that continuation of proceedings will result in waste of public time and money coupled with harassment to the parties. Similar view has been followed in another decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Agarwal and Ors., (2005) 3 S.C.C., 299. In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the view that the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1088 of 2000- State v. Chandra Prakash and Ors., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed to meet the ends of justice.
4. For the reasons discussed above, this application is allowed and the criminal proceedings in case No. 1088 of 2000- State v. Chandra Prakash and Ors., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut is quashed.