✦ Uttarakhand High Court

Misc. Case No. 39 of 2008 · High Court

Misc. Case No. 39 of 2008PRAFULLA C PANT

Case at a glance

Judgment

Mr. Naveneet Kaushik, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate present respondents No. 1 and 2. All the parties, namely Vishwa Jeet Kaushik (petitioner No. 1), Smt. Sarika (respondent No. 1) and Km. Khushi (respondent No. 2), are present in person before this Court. Heard. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 39 of 2008, Sarika Vs. Viswa Jeet Kaushik, filed under Section 17, 18, 19, 20 and 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, police station Jwalapur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Today the parties to matrimony entered into a compromise in the Court. Details of the compromise are mentioned in today’s order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 237 of 2003. In view of said fact, now, the respondents do not want to press the impugned Criminal Misc. Case No. 39 of 2008, filed under Section 17, 18, 19, 20 and 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In view of the principle of law laid down in B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, and the settlement arrived at between the parties to the matrimony, this petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the direction that the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 39 of 2008, Smt. Srika Vs. Vishwa Jeet Kaushik, filed under Section 17, 18, 19, 20 and 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, police station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. HN (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 19.04.2010

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Uttarakhand High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Misc. Case No. 39 of 2008). ← Search more judgments