Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri S.K. Tripathi, Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. On the request of Learned Counsel for the applicants another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 01.06.2007 had referred the matter to mediation centre. The Incharge mediation centre vide its report dated 06.08.2007 had reported that husband and wife had agreed to live together and settlement agreement dated 06.08.2007 was signed by applicant No. 1, (husband)Rajeev Kumar and opposite party No. 2, Sitala Devi (wife), copy of which report is on record.
(2.) IT is contended by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. that immediately after signing of the settlement agreement, opposite party No. 2 was again left behind by the applicants and she was not permitted to go with her husband and also not permitted to live in her matrimonial house. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 289 of 2006, under Sections 323, 498 -A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate -V, Farrukhabad.
(3.) IT is contended by Learned Counsel for the applicants that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.;