Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15423 of 2016 Applicant :- Dharmveer And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Sunil Kumar Gaur, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Manoj Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet dated 14.11.2014 as well as the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 4565 of 2016, (State Vs. Dharmaveer and Others), under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Udhaiti, District Badaun pending before the Court of A.C.J.M. Ist, Badaun.
The present application came up for admission on 17.05.2016 and this Court passed the following interim order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 14.11.2014 filed against the applicants as well as entire proceedings of criminal case no. 4565 of 2016 (State Vs. Dharamveer and others), case crime no. 225 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Udhaiti, district Badaun pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-Ist, Badaun. Further it has been prayed to to stay the entire criminal proceedings of aforesaid case.
After having very carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material brought on record, I find that there is no justification for staying the proceeding of the aforementioned case in respect of the applicant no.1 and 2. The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant no. 1 and 2 is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicant no.1 and 2 surrender 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 judgment 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, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no.1 and 2.
It is made clear that the applicant no.1 and 2 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below, as directed above.
So far as applicant nos. 3 to 7 concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are father in law and mother in law and the allegations levelled against them are wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against them.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
Notice will be issued to opposite party no. 2. Steps to be taken within a week.
All the opposite parties may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List on 30.8.2016 before appropriate Bench.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case against applicants no. 3 and 7 shall remain stayed."
During the pendency of the present criminal misc. application, it appears that the parties entered into compromise. This fact has been brought on record by the opposite party No. 2 in the short counter affidavit filed before this Court. In paragraph No. 5 of the short counter affidavit, it has been specifically averred that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and now the applicant No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 have decided to live separately. Learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of the Court to the written statement filed by the opposite party No. 2 in the divorce suit (Dharmveer Vs. Smt. Shivani), wherein the defendant in paragraph 20 of the written statement has categorically stated that she has no objection, in case the suit is decreed and the decree of divorce is granted.
On the aforesaid factual premise, it is submitted that the dispute between the parties in the present application is a purely private and matrimonial dispute. The parties have arrived at a settlement outside the Court. On the basis of the same, the opposite party No. 2 has agreed for grant of divorce decree in favour of the applicant No. 1. Thus, it is submitted that since the parties have settled the dispute, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case pending. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may itself quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case to do complete justice between the parties, instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Gaur, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Manoj Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, does not dispute the facts noted herein above. He, however, fairly submits that in view of the averments made in written statement filed by the opposite party No. 2 in the divorce suit filed by the applicant No. 1, the opposite party No. 2 cannot have any surviving cause of action to pursue the above mentioned State case.
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
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein 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, 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 Criminal Case No. 4565 of 2016, (State Vs. Dharmaveer and Others), under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Udhaiti, District Badaun pending before the Court of A.C.J.M. Ist, Badaun, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.9.2018 HSM