Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30612 of 2014 Applicant :- Azmul And 7 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the the charge-sheet No. 117 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act in case no. 142 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2013, P.S.-Jahanganj, District-Farrukhabad pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Farrukhabad, on the ground that the parties have entered into a compromise.
The present application came up for admission on 07.08.2014 and the Court passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet no. 117/2013, U/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D. P. Act and also set aside the order dated 7.3.2014 passed in case no. 182 of 2014; State Vs. Azmul and others.
As far as applicant no. 1 is concerned, the following order is being passed:
After hearing learned counsel for the applicant no. 1 and learned AGA, this application is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant no. 1 surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no. 1. However, in case, the applicant no. 1 does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
As far as applicant nos. 2 to 8 are concerned, the following order is being passed:
Issue notice to respondent no. 2 returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week.
Counter affidavit to be filed within four weeks by the learned A.G.A. as well as respondent no. 2 and rejoinder affidavit to be filed within three weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Until further orders of this Court, further proceedings as far as applicant nos. 2 to 8 are concerned in case no. 182 of 2014; State Vs. Azmul and others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate City, Farrukhabad shall remain stayed. "
In compliance of the order dated 07.08.2014, the opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit clearly disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present application. However, subsequently, it appears that the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2, who are the husband and wife amicably settled their dispute and started residing peacefully together. The settlement agreement so arrived at between the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2, was reduced in writing by way of a compromise deed. The said compromise has also been sworn by filing an affidavit.
Rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2, has been filed by the applicants appending the compromise deed with the same.
On the basis of the compromise deed so executed by the parties, i.e., the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have settled their dispute outside the court, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the aforesaid case. He further submits that this court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned case in the interest of justice instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
Mr. Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that he has filed his vakalatnama in the present application on 17.05.2018 in the Registry of the Court but the same is not on record. The Registry is directed to trace out the same and restore it on the record.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the compromise/settlement so entered between the parties as is evident from the compromise deed, copy of which is on the record as Annexure SA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. He further submits that in view of the amicable settlement between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 coupled with the fact that the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are living together as husband and wife. No further cause of action survives to the opposite party no.2 to pursue the case, which came into existence on the basis of the first information report lodged by the opposite party no.2 This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the following cases:
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 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. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the judgments noted above 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.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the charge-sheet No. 117 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act in case no. 142 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2013, P.S.-Jahanganj, District-Farrukhabad pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Farrukhabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 YK