Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21310 of 2016 Applicant :- Akhlaq Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,Vinay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 24th August, 2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Jhansi in Complaint Case No. 4937 of 2014 (Smt. Arshi Mehnaz vs. Akhlaq Ahmad & Others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Jhansi as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
The present application came up for admission before this Court on 22nd, July, 2016 and the Court passed the following interim order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the records.
The dispute in question is between the family members and close relatives. The opposite party no. 2 had filed complaint case no. 4937 of 2014 (Smt. Arshi Mehnaz Vs. Akhlaq Ahmad and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Jhansi against applicants relating to family dispute.
Learned counsel for the applicants also requests for sending this matter to mediation. In these circumstances, this request is accepted.
Let this matter be sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. Before referring this matter, the applicant no.1/ husband will deposit a sum of Rs. 7,500/- within three weeks from today in the account head of the Registrar-General, Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, which will be paid to opposite party no.2/wife during mediation proceedings. Mediation proceedings will be decided within six months and accordingly report be sent to this Court.
Till further orders, proceeding of complaint case no. 4937 of 2014 (Smt. Arshi Mehnaz Vs. Akhlaq Ahmad and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana District Jhansi pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate- IInd, Jhansi shall remain stayed.
List after receipt of report of mediation centre.
After depositing the aforesaid amount, notice shall be issued to the parties and in case, the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted above shall automatically stand vacated."
In compliance of the order of the Court dated 22nd July, 2016, the applicants deposited the requisite amount before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad and as a consequence thereof, notices were issued to the opposite party no.2 to come and participate in the mediation proceedings to be held in compliance of the interim order dated 22nd July, 2016.
The mediation proceedings commenced before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad and the parties arrived at a settlement therein. Consequently, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad prepared the settlement agreement dated 4th October, 2016, wherein the terms and conditions of the settlement so arrived at between the parties were recorded. Clause-6 of the Settlement Agreement dated 4th October, 2016 contains the terms of the settlement, which are reproduced here-under:
"6. That in pursuance of the "Talaknama" dated 20.08.2016, signed by the parties, the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:
a) That the marriage of Sri Akhalaq Ahmad (Applicant No.1- Husband) and Smt. Arshi Mehnaz (O.P. No. 2-wife) was solemnized on 04.12.2009. After some time of the marriage, the relation between the parties became strained and hence they are living separately since last three years. Out of the aforesaid wedlock a son named Danish, about four and half years old was born.
b) That the disputes between the parties is irreconcilable, hence parties have agreed for Mobbarat i.e. divorce by mutual consent.
c) That today Sri Akhalaq Ahmad (Applicant No.1-Husband) and Smt. Arshi Mehnaz (O.P. No.2-wife) has appeared before the Mediation Centre with the "Talaknama", dated 20.08.2016, signed by them in presence of witnesses. The certified copy of the "Talaknama" has been annexed to this settlement agreement.
d) That in pursuance of "Talaknama" Sri Akhalaq Ahmad (Applicant No.1-Husband) has paid Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only), by means of demand draft, DD No.- 531585, dated 19.08.2016, issued by PNB to Smt. Arshi Mehnaz (O.P. No. 2-wife), as permanent alimony inclusive of Mehar, amount of Iddat, maintenance etc., mentioned in paragraph-2 of page no.-2 of the Talaknama and she has acknowledged the same.
e) That Smt. Arshi Mehnaz (O.P. No. 2-wife) undertakes that she will not claim Mehar and the amount of Iddat, however the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) is inclusive of Mehar, amount of Iddat, maintenance etc.
f) That the husband has proclaimed Talak thrice and the wife has accepted the same in presence of witnesses mentioned on page no. 5 of the Talaknama.
g) They have further agreed that they will be free from any interference from each other in their peaceful life and will be free to lead their lives according to their will.
h) That it has been agreed between the parties that the cases filed by them against each other will be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned, within one month from today."
Thereafter the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad has submitted its report dated 4th October, 2016 addressed to the Court annexing along with the same the original Settlement Agreement dated 4th October, 2016, which are on the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement dated 4th October, 2016, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) has been paid to the opposite party no.1 by means of Bank Draft dated 19th August, 2016 and photo copy of the Talaknama/Ikrarnama, which was made by the applicant no.1 to the opposite party no.2, which is admitted to the opposite party no.2, is also on the record. Further return of Mehar by the applicant no.1 to the opposite party no.2, which was agreed as Rs. 40,000/- (rupees forty thousand only) was also admitted along with the other conditions of the compromise. It further transpires that the other litigation, which were initiated by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant no.1 and others have also been withdrawn in compliance of the aforesaid Talaknama/Ikrarnama dated 20th August, 2016.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the facts, as noted above, no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case. He further submits that since the dispute has already been finally settled between the parties, as is evident from the Settlement Agreement dated 4th October, 2016, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may itself quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case to do complete justice between the parties instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
Learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 does not dispute the settlement arrived at between the parties, as is explicit from the Settlement Agreement dated 4th October, 2016. He further submits that in view of the Settlement Agreement dated 4th October, 2016, no further cause of action survives with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned complaint case filed by her.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another;
(2003)4 SCC 675,
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case, as the parties have settled their dispute by means of Settlement Agreement dated 4th October, 2016.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4937 of 2014 (Smt. Arshi Mehnaz vs. Akhlaq Ahmad & Others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Jhansi, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Jhansi, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 18.8.2018 Sushil/-