1. Heard Shri Sarvajeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant no. 4 and Shri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the material brought on record.
2. This application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) has been filed challenging the order dated 10.02.2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badaun in Criminal Case No. 4308 of 2014 (State of U.P. versus Deepak Malpani and 3 others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1448 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station-Ujhani, District-Badaun.
3. By order dated 10.02.2015, the application filed by the accused-applicants for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
4. Initially this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by four accused-applicants. The applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the opposite party no. 2. The applicant no. 4 is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of opposite party no. 2.
5. This Court by order dated 29.02.2016 refused the prayer made in the present application with respect to the applicant nos. 1 to 3. So far as the applicant no. 4 is concerned, notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 granting time to file counter affidavit and the order under challenge was stayed against the applicant no. 4. The present application is, therefore, for consideration with respect to the applicant no. 4 only.
6. Briefly stated facts of the case as per the application/petition are that the opposite party no. 2 was married with applicant no. 1 as per Hindu rites and rituals on 09.02.2012. The opposite party no. 2 on 25.10.2012 lodged the first information report against the applicants concerning the alleged demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty. The investigating officer filed chargesheet on 06.07.2013. The applicants filed application under Section 482 No. 11459 of 2014, in which, this Court by order dated 16.04.2014 referred the matter to the Mediation Centre with direction to the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- but the same was not deposited and consequently, the said case was automatically dismissed in terms of the order dated 16.04.2014 itself.
7. Thereafter, the applicants filed a discharge application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badaun under Section 239 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by order dated 10.02.2015 against which the applicants filed Criminal Revision No. 87/2015, which was dismissed by order dated 07.12.2015 passed by the learned Session Judge Badaun.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant no. 4 submits that, later on, the applicants filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 41878 of 2017 in which the matter was referred to the Medication Centre of this Court where both the parties appeared and arrived at a compromise/settlement dated 21.08.2018 and thereby settled all their civil and criminal disputes. Subsequently, the applicant nos. 1 to 3 were acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Badaun in Criminal Case No. 4308 of 2014 by judgment dated 29.04.2019. Certified copy of that judgment was placed before the court on the record of this case. Averments to the above effect have also been made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for listing/urgency application.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant no. 4 submits that in view of the interim order dated 29.02.2016, the criminal case did not proceed against applicant no. 4, although, the same proceeded against applicant nos. 1 to 3 and they were acquitted. The submission is, that in view of the compromise between the parties and acquittal of the applicant nos. 1 to 3 in the same criminal case, the proceeding pending against the applicant no. 4 deserves to be quashed along with the order under challenge, to secure the ends of justice. He submits that the role assigned to the applicant no. 4 is the same as that of the applicant-accused nos. 1 to 3.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts. He submits that the parties entered into compromise and thereby brought an end to all their civil and criminal disputes through the process of mediation. The applicant nos. 1 to 3 have been acquitted by the judgement dated 02.09.2019. He submits that the present Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition may be allowed in view of the subsequent developments, to which he has no objection.
11. Learned A.G.A. has also not disputed the above facts.
12. I have considered the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. There is no dispute that the parties entered into compromise through the process of mediation in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in application under Section 482 No. 41878 of 2017.
14. There is also no dispute that the applicant nos. 1 to 3 the other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the judgment dated 29.04.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badaun and the role assigned to applicant no. 4 in the same F.I.R. incident is not different than that of the co-accused persons already acquitted.
15. In the application/petition prayer was made to quash the order dated 10.02.2015, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badaun in Criminal Case No. 4308 of 2014 (State of U.P. versus Deepak Malpani and 3 others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1448 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station-Ujhani, District-Badaun. There is no specific prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of the Case Crime No. mentioned above, although there is prayer to pass such other and further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
16. Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order in the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
17. In view of the subsequent developments i.e. that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled all the disputes civil and criminal and that the co-accused applicant nos. 1 to 3 have been acquitted in the same Case Crime No.; the role assigned to the applicant no. 4 was of general nature, and the same as to that of the accused-applicant nos. 1 to 3; that the chances of conviction of the applicant no. 4 are remote and bleak; the dispute being predominantly a matrimonial dispute, purely personal, without having any impact on the society as well as considering the legal position as settled in the cases of B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & others versus State of Panjab & another (2014) 6 SCC 466 , Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai ... vs The State Of Gujarat & Ors 2017 (9) SCC 641, and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & others versus Union of India, 2018 (10) SCC 443, it would be in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings against the applicant no. 4 be also brought to an end to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.
18. Consequently this petition/application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order dated 10.02.2015 under challenge and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4308 of 2014 (State of U.P. versus Deepak Malpani and 3 others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1448 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station-Ujhani, District-Badaun are hereby quashed against the applicant no. 4.
19. No orders as to cost.
Order Date:-12.01.2021 SY