Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 976 of 2018 Applicant :- Anuj Kumar And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey,Om Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Sharma
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Criminal Case No. 1099 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Anuj Kumar and others) including the non-bailable warrant dated 06.12.2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 296 of 2016, under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506, 313, 354, 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Raya, District- Mathura, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court no. 1, Mathura.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 Anuj Kumar (since deceased) and the opposite party no. 2.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that:-
(i) though the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties;
(ii) the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some 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 applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) certain physical injuries had been wrongly claimed by the opposite party no. 2, out of emotional hurt caused and not on account of any physical hurt or injury, as alleged Hence, that allegation may also not stand in the way of the applicants in seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution;
(v) during the life time of applicant no. 1, he had instituted the proceeding for dissolution of marriage against the opposite party no. 2, however, the same remained inconclusive on account of his death during the pendency of such proceeding;
(vi) in the meanwhile, the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 have entered into a written compromise which was also filed before the learned court below and the same has been duly verified. In support of such submission, certified copy of the compromise reached between the parties as was filed before the learned court below and the order passed on 18.09.2018 have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit.
(vii) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.
7. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being a matrimonial dispute that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing such a prosecution to proceed any further.
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 proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
9. The present application is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 26.9.2018 Prakhar