Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7552 of 2019 Applicant :- Deenanath Tiwari And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Vakalatnama of Sri Shashank Shekhar, Advocate filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and Sri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 03.08.2010, cognizance order dated 10.12.2010 and proceedings of case no. 852 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Shahpur, District-Gorakhpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur, on the basis of compromise/settlement made between the parties.
Brief facts of the case is that applicant no. 1 is husband, applicant no. 2 is brother-in-law (devar), applicant no.3 is nephew, applicant no. 4 is mother-in-law, applicant no.5 and 6 are neighbours of the opposite party no.2. The marriage of applicant no.1 with the opposite party no.2 has solemnized on 05.05.2009. On account of matrimonial dispute between the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no.2, F.I.R. was lodged on 19.05.2010 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants registered as Case Crime No. 831 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Shahpur, District-Gorakhpur. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 03.08.2010 against the applicants. Later on, applicant no. 1 and opposite party no.2 on mutual consent filed a divorce petition No. 497 of 2017, under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act before Family Judge, Gorakhpur. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 moved an application before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur on 26.09.2018 stating therein that she did not want to prosecute the applicants in Criminal Case No. 582 of 2010 on account of settlement made between the parties and prayed to drop the proceedings against the applicants on the basis of compromise.
In view of the aforesaid background of facts, applicants filed an application under Section 482 No. 44054 of 2018 before this Court seeking quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 582 of 2010 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur which was disposed of by order dated 05.12.2018 of this Court. The aforesaid order dated 05.12.2018 of this Court is being reproduced herein below-:
"Power filed by Sri Shashank Shekhar, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 582 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably compromised their dispute on 05.03.2009.
Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise has already been filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Office is directed to return the original compromise to the counsel for the applicant within three days from today and the photostat copy will be placed on record of the same."
In compliance of order dated 05.12.2018, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur passed the order dated 22.01.2019 appended as Annexure No. 6 to the application verifying the compromise application and affidavit dated 22.01.2019 specifically mentioning that the opposite party no.2/informant personally appeared in the court before him and accepted that compromise has been taken place between her and accused persons, therefore, she does not want any action against the applicants. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application has been filed to quash the entire aforesaid criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 is present. It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that since the dispute between the parties concerned has been amicably settled, therefore, informant has no objection in case impugned criminal proceeding is quashed against the applicant by this Court.
Keeping in mind the sage advice of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675 to Courts to encourage settlement of marital disputes between contesting spouses so that they do not lose their youthful years in chasing interminable litigations and reiterating the following lines from paragraph 10 of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, I think the interests of justice would be met if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end. The lines read:
"In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in 'negative'. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides."
On making settlement/compromise between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.
Thus, in view of above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is liable to be allowed in terms of aforesaid settlement /compromise dated 26.09.2018 keeping in view of well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (supra).
Consequently, the the charge-sheet dated 03.08.2010, cognizance order dated 10.12.2010 and proceedings of case no. 852 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C.
and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Shahpur, District-Gorakhpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur is hereby quashed.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise/settlement dated 26.09.2018.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019/AKT