Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12396 of 2017 Applicant :- Anand Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Joint affidavit of applicant and opposite party no.2 has been filed today. Taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and; learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 5.6.2016, cognizance order dated 14.7.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2319 of 2016, State Vs. Anand Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2015, under Sections- 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Mahoba, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the real dispute between the parties was a matrimonial discord between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that:-
(i) the only dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature;
(ii) the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;
(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) at present, the parties have resolved their differences such that the parties are living together in matrimony and;
(v) therefore, in the changed circumstance, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicant.
5. In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed, it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto estranged couple and their families;
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. The fact that the applicant and opposite party no.
2 have resolved their differences and are living together in matrimony have been brought on record by means of paragraph no. 7 of the joint affidavit, which reads as under :
"7. That the dispute in the present case is matrimonial dispute and applicants and Opposite Party No. 2 have settled their disputes amicably and they are not having any grievances with each other and Opposite Party No.2 is living happily with the applicant and performed her matrimonial obligations peacefully and therefore on the basis of compromise, the impugned charge sheet as well as entire proceeding of case No. 2319 of 2016, State Vs. Anand Kumar and others is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court so that justice be done."
7. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being matrimonial discord that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their entire satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.
8. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the proceeding of the aforesaid case against the applicant is hereby quashed.
9. The present application is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Prakhar