Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State.
None has appeared from the side of the opposite party no. 2, The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no. 449 of 2015 dated 17.9.2015 and cognizance and summoning order dated 18.12.2015 passed by C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 39525 of 2015 arsing out of case crime no. 566 of 2015, under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC at P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.
As per F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no. 2, her husband used to beat her daily and used to ask her to go out of her house and used to give threat to kill. For one year, she was not given food nor any money. She was working in LIC and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and used to meet her own expenses. Her husband used to be instigated by her mother-in-law and father-in-law while she wanted to remain with her husband. continuously her husband/applicant used to harass and torture her everyday.
On the basis of these allegations, F.I.R. was lodged at the P.S. Chakeri, under Sections 498-A, 325, 506 IPC in crime no. 566 of 2015 and charge sheet had been submitted after investigation by the police under the above mentioned sections after recording statements of informant and Smt. Urmila Bhatiya and Motilal.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that parties have entered into compromise but despite sufficient service, the opposite party no. 2 is not turning up before this Court. He has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Crl. Appeal No. 741 of 2009 (Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runik Bhardwaj and ors.) and drawn attention to the pragraph no. 12 of the same and for the sake of convenience, paragraph no. 12 is quoted herein below :-
"12. It is clear from perusal of the impugned order of the High Court that the development of settlement between the parties during pendency of the revision petition has not even been adverted to. Once the matter was settled between the parties and the said settlement was given effect to in the form of divorce by mutual consent, no further dispute survived between the parties, though it was not so expressly recorded in the order of this Court. No liberty was reserved by the wife to continue further proceedings against the husband. Thus, the wife was, after settling the matter, estopped from continuing the proceedings. In any case, it is well settled that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can interfere with the acquittal only if there is perversity in the order of acquittal. In the present case, the order of acquittal could not be held to be perverse. The High Court observed that the demand of articles, papers of house property of Jabalpur and Noida and the contents of Exhibits Ka2 and Ka3 amounted to harassment, cruelty and mental torture. This observation amounted to substitution of its view by the High Court for the view taken by the Magistrate after due consideration of all the allegations. The Magistrate inter alia found the version of the respondent-wife to be not believable and also found that the allegations were not substantiated. It was observed that the wife herself admitted that the documents Exhibit Ka2 and Ka3 were merely guidelines for good conduct and behavior expected of her and did not amount to cruelty. It was also admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. The Investigating Officer had never visited Jabalpur and the demand of house at Jabalpur was not substantiated. It was further observed that criminal case filed by the wife was a counter blast to the divorce case filed by the husband. Version before the Court was improvement over the original version in the First Information Report. She had given contradictory statement about the place where her husband demanded the house. Thus, the Magistrate having dealt with the matter threadbare, the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal particularly when the parties had reached the settlement before this Court on the basis of which divorce by mutual consent was granted by the Family Court, Jabalpur which fact was placed on record of the High Court."
It is argued on the basis of the above judgment that it has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that once the matter is settled between the parties and the settlement has been given effect to in the form of divorce on mutual consent, no further dispute survives between the parties and that no liberty was reserved by the wife to continue further proceedings against her husband. Thus, the wife after settling the matter, was estopped from continuing the proceedings and on the basis of this, it is argued by him that in the present case as well, parties have taken divorce mutually and the judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar passed under Section 13-B dated 7.2.2017 is annexed at page 49 of the affidavit in which it is mentioned by the court that both the parties were living separately in the same house since seven to eight years and the cases which were filed by them against each other, were also narrated and parties have finally compromised of their own free will and on that basis, they want that their divorce should be allowed on the basis of consent. It is further mentioned that the opposite party no. 2 had already received her Streedhan and would not obtain any maintenance from her husband nor would she file any case regarding that in future and in paragraph no. 11 of the petition, it was also stated by both the parties that whatever cases they have filed, they will be got terminated in accordance with the compromise and on that basis, the said compromise decree was passed and divorce was granted. He has further brought to the notice of this Court that there was one case filed by the applicant against the opposite party no. 2 being case no. 1269 of 2015, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which, he had got the said proceedings not-pressed and the said case was dismissed which is annexed at page 54 of the affidavit and this step was taken by the applicant because of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties. He has further drawn attention to the criminal case no. 2859 of 2015 filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violance Act, P.S. Chakeri and in that case also both the parties got the case dismissed in non presence. Having drawn attention to this, it is argued by him that in the said case of section 12 of the D.V. Act, the opposite party no. 2 had not appeared on the understanding that dispute has already been settled between the two sides, hence the said case was got dismissed. Now the compromise which was arrived at had already been acted upon, hence in view of the law laid down by this Court cited above, opposite party no. 2 now is stopped from continuing these proceedings, the proceedings needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of quashing.
Looking to the fact that sufficient opportunity has been given to the opposite party no. 2 as appearance have been put in from his side but today none is present while case was fixed for final arguments, hence it is being found that probably, the opposite party no. 2 in view of the said compromise having been arrived, does not want to proceed with this case.
Accordingly, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofShlok Bhardwaj (supra) and the proceedings of the aforesaid case deserve to be quashed and are, accordingly, quashed as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceeding pending, there being no possibility of conviction.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 A.P. Pandey