Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13998 of 2018 Applicant :- Dr. Albel Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Dileep Kumar,Muktesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Das holding brief of Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant who has filed his Vakalatnama in Court today, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Muktesh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dileep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in connected matters.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet No.53/12 dated 12.04.2012 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.295 of 2015-State vs. Dr. Albel Singh, based on the said charge sheet (arising out from Case Crime No. 31/2012, police Station Perm Nagar, District Jhansi), pending in the Court of Additonal Session Judge/F.T.C., Court No.1 Jhansi, under Sections 498A, 323, 313, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, so far as it relates with the applicant and the order dated 12.09.2012, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Court No.9, Jhansi, whereby the Magistrate, has taken cognizance and issued process through summons, against the applicant for facing trial may also be quashed, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties dated 21.08.2017 (Annexure No.V to the accompanying affidavit), Police Station Prem Nagar, Jhansi and also for quashing of the summoning order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No. 9, Jhansi, in the above mentioned case.
The present application came up for admission on 24.04.2018 and this Court passed the following order:-
"Put up on 27.04.2018 in the additional cause list along with records of Application under section 482 No. 34872/2012, Bhala Ram and others vs. State of U.P. and another and Criminal Revision No. 709 of 2016, Smt. Yogita Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another."
During the pendency of the present application, a suit for divorce being suit No.481/2016 (Dr.Albel Singh vs. Smt. Yogita Yadav) was filed in the Competent Court at Jhansi in terms of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the aforesaid divorce suit, a compromise application was filed wherein the parties agreed to terminate the matrimonial relationship by filing a suit under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as upon payment of Rs. 40,00000/-(Rs.Forty Lakhs only) as permanent alimony by the husband to the wife.
Consequently, suit No.662 of 2017 (Dr. Albel Singh vs. Smt. Yogita Yadav) was filed before the Family Court, Jhansi in terms of Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Pursuant to the aforesaid compromise, the Court ceased of the divorce suit No.481 of 2016 passed the order dated 21.09.2017 whereby the said suit was decreed in terms of the compromise and the deed of compromise was also made the part of the decree.
This suit under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is said to be pending. However, in terms of compromise so entered between the parties and was filed in case No.481 of 2016, the applicant Albel Singh Yadav has paid a sum of Rs.40,0000/- (Rs. Forty Lakhs only) to the opposite party No. 2 by means of a bank draft dated 01.02.2018. Therefore, now it is only the consequential action which remains to be taken by the Court where the suit under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is said to be pending. On the basis of the facts as stated above a joint affidavit has been filed in the connected Criminal Misc. Application No. 45008 of 2013, praying therein that since the parties have already entered into compromise, which is on the record as Annexure-1 to the joint affidavit filed in the connected Criminal Misc. Application No. 45008 of 2013 and pursuant thereto a suit for divorce by mutual consent as contemplated under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed followed by the payment of Rs.40,0000/- (Rs. Forty Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony by the applicant to the opposite party No.2. It is urged that the proceedings of the complaint State case giving rise to the present application under Section 482 be decided as clause (3) of the compromise clearly provides that the cases filed by the parties against each other shall be got terminated.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the opposite part No.2 submits that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of the above mentioned State case. He therefore, submits that since the parties have already entered into a compromise settlement whereby they have dissolved their disputes and the said compromise has also been acted upon as is evident from the facts as quoted herein above. No useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings in the above mentioned State case. He further submits that this Court should be inclined to do complete justice between the parties instead of relegating them to the Court below.
Mr. Muktesh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dileep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the fact as noted herein above and as also the filing of the compromise application in the in the connected Criminal Misc. Application No. 45008 of 2013. According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the opposite party No.2 cannot have any further cause of action to pursue the above mentioned State case in view of the joint affidavit filed before this Court in the connected Criminal Misc. Application No. 45008 of 2013, seeking disposal of the State case in terms of the compromise so entered between the parties.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
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, entire proceedings of Session Trial No.295 of 2015-State vs. Dr. Albel Singh, based on the said charge sheet (arising out from Case Crime No. 31/2012, police Station Perm Nagar, District Jhansi), pending in the Court of Additonal Session Judge/F.T.C., Court No.1 Jhansi, under Sections 498A, 323, 313, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, so far as it relates with the applicant are hereby quashed and the order dated 12.09.2012, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Court No.9, Jhansi, whereby the Magistrate, has taken cognizance and issued process through summons, is hereby set aside.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.8.2018 cks