Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24417 of 2016 Applicant :- Bal Ram Mishra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Verma
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Sri Neeraj Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Deepak Verma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that he has filed his vakalatnama in the registry on 19th May, 2017. However, the same is not on record. Registry is directed to trace out the same and restore it on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 16th July, 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2009 (Balram Mishra & Others vs. State of U.P.) and for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 6563 of 2008 (State vs. Balram Mishra), under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad arising out of Case Crime No. 405 of 2002, under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad.
The present application came up for admission on 12th August, 2016 and the Court passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State-respondent.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties are residing together in terms of compromise. Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1.
Issue notice to opposite party No. 2 returnable within a period of four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned AGA prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. Opposite party No. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Learned counsel for the applicant shall have two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit.
List after the expiry of the aforesaid period before the appropriate Bench.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2009 (Balram Mishra vs. State of U.P.) pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 15, Allahabad arising out of Case Crime No. 405 of 2002, under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS Naini, district Allahabad."
From the record, it appears that the marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnised with the opposite party no.2 in the year 1993 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Subsequently, the relation between the husband and wife became strained. It further appears that applicants harassed the opposite party no.2. A First Information Report dated 23rd August, 2002 was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants, which was registered as Case Crime No. 405 of 2002 under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad. Upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the police submitted a charge-sheet, upon which congnizance was taken and consequently, Case No. 6563 of 2008 (State vs. Balram Mishra & Others), under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad came into existence. The same was tried by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad. Vide judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2009, the Magistrate convicted the applicants under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and consequently sentenced them to undergo 2 years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. On failure to pay the amount of fine, the applicants were to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad, the present applicants filed a Criminal Appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The same was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2009 (Balram Mishra & Others vs. State of U.P.). During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant no.1 Balram Mishra and opposite party no.2 Sunita Devi, who are husband and wife, jointly filed an application dated 30th January, 2012 stating therein that since the parties, who are husband and wife, have settled the dispute by way of compromise, the appeal be decided in terms of the compromise. This application dated 30th January, 2012 has been rejected by the court below by means of the impugned order dated 16th July, 2016. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have now approached this Court by means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 is basically a matrimonial dispute. The parties to the matrimonial dispute have settled their differences and are now peacefully living as husband and wife. It was in light of the aforesaid fact that the application dated 30th January, 2012 was filed before the court below. However, the court below on a technical view of the matter rejected the said application. The rejection of the said application by the court below has resulted in miscarriage of justice as a happy family will be broken down on account of judicial order passed by the Magistrate. He, therefore, submits that once the parties have resolved their differences outside the court and in light of the same had submitted an application for setting side the entire criminal proceedings as well as the judgment of the trial court, there was no occasion before the appellate court to take a parochial view of the matter. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the court below has erred in rejecting the compromise application jointly filed by the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 on technical grounds. He, therefore, submits that this Court in interest of justice in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself can quash the proceedings, instead of relegating the parties to the court below for adjudication afresh as the factum of the compromise remains undisputed.
Mr. Deepak Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the factum of the compromise so entered into between the parties, as is explicit from the compromise application dated 30th January, 2012 filed before the court below as well as the fact that the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 are happily living together as husband and wife. He further submits that as the parties have settled their differences and are residing together as husband and wife, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an impediment in the happy married life of the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2. He, therefore, submits that he has no objection in case the entire proceedings of Case No. 6563 of 2008 (State vs. Balram Mishra & Others), under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad are quashed.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
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, and
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 aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and also upon perusal of the material brought on the record, the inescapable conclusion is that though the dispute between the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 is basically a matrimonial dispute but subsequently, they have resolved their differences and are now living together leading a happy married life. In the aforesaid circumstances the continuation of the present criminal proceedings in court would be miscarriage of justice rather than doing justice between the parties. Therefore, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2009 (Balram Mishra & Others vs. State of U.P.) under Section 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad pending.
Accordingly, the order dated 16th July, 2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2009 (Balram Mishra & Others vs. State of U.P.), the entire proceedings of Case No. 6563 of 2008 (State vs. Balram Mishra) under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad as well as the judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad are quashed. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2009 (Balram Mishra & Others vs. State of U.P.) under Section 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Allahabad, shall stand dismissed as infructuous.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Sushil/-