Court No. - 4
Criminal Misc. Time Extension Application No.3 of 2018 IN Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22470 of 2018 Petitioner :- Amit And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
This is an application seeking extension of time moved on behalf of petitioners/applicants for complying with the order dated 20.8.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants has made a prayer that this application may be dismissed as not pressed.
Accordingly, the time extension application stands dismissed as not pressed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Shalini .
.
.
.
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22470 of 2018 Petitioner :- Amit And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Short counter affidavit has been filed in the Court today and is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Manoj Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned counsels for respondent no.3.
Following order was passed in this case on 20.8.2018 :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present matter relates to a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and the said matter can be well considered by Mediation Centre of this Court. It is further contended that there are chances of reconciliation between the parties, therefore the matter may be referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court.
Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, I have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties.
It is directed that petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- within two weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of which 90% shall be paid to the opposite party no.3 for appearance before the Mediation Centre.
The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that same may be decided after giving notices to both the parties.
It is directed that Mediation Centre shall decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. Thereafter the case shall be listed before appropriate Bench on 20.11.2018.
Till the next date of listing, further proceeding of Case Crime No.95 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323, 377, 376, 307, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, shall be kept in abeyance.
After depositing the amount, aforesaid, notice shall be issued to the parties and in the case the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted above shall automatically be vacated. "
When this matter was taken up today, we were informed by learned counsel for the parties that petitioner no.1, Amit and his wife-respondent no.3, Smt. Ruby have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably outside the Court and respondent no.3 is now living with her husband-petitioner no.1 in her matrimonial home.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the short counter affidavit which are relevant for our purpose are being reproduced by us :-
3. That after some time some respectable persons and relative are interfere between parties, thereafter between parties are compromise and she is residing in her in-law house with her husband.
4. That at the present time no any dispute between husband and wife and she is not want to proceed the case, due to this reason quash the proceeding of the present case."
Sri Manoj Tripathi has submitted that his client-respondent no.3 in view of the settlement, is no longer interested in pursuing criminal prosecution of the petitioners any further and she has no objection to the impugned first information report being quashed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.3 in person, and perused the material brought on record, we find that the dispute between petitioner no.1 and his wife-respondent no.3 has been amicably settled outside the Court, hence, no useful purpose shall be served in proceeding with the matter any further.
Accordingly, the impugned first information report and all subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed.
Writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Shalini