Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10209 of 2018 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,M L Jain
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Short counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.24 of 2018 (State Vs. Amit Srivastava & others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Mirzapur in Case Crime No.0008 of 2017, presently pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Mirzapur as well as impugned charge sheet dated 3.9.2017, the cognizance taken on 2.1.2018 and other process issued against them in term of compromise entered between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2.
Heard Sri Shivendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri M.L. Jain, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for both the parties have stated that the proceedings under challenge pertain to matrimonial dispute. The parties have now settled their differences between them and entered into compromise on 16.1.2018. It is stated that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., proceedings were dropped and divorce decree was passed on the basis of compromise.
In the short counter affidavit, it is stated that the opposite party no.2 and applicants have decided to live separately and she has received a lump sum amount of Rs.6 lacs towards one time maintenance from the applicants and has also received back articles given in the dowry and now she does not want to proceed against the applicants. Therefore, the proceedings against the husband and others applicants may be quashed by this Court in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of U.P., (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties have been settled, the opposite party has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be quashed.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record including the joint affidavit filed today on behalf of the parties.
In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non- compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands.
Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
In view of the above, the application is allowed.
The entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed in terms of compromise.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Ram Murti