Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19044 of 2016
Applicant :- Hement And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Atul Kumar Singh,Gajendra Pratap Singh,Vishnu Dayal Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Kaushal
Upadhyay,M.P.S. Chauhan,Rakesh Kumar Tiwari,Satya Prakash Sharma
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the state.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet no. 30 of 2016 dated 30.10.2015 in Criminal Case No. 315 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Hemand and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2015, under Section 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Aligarh in terms of compromise.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that he has paid a Demand Draft "No. 578241" amounting Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn in favour of opposite party no. 2 on 25.04.2019 to her today itself. Remaining amount shall be paid at the time of disposal of petition under Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act. It is further argued that parties have settled the dispute. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties has been settled, demand draft amounting Rs. 2,50,000/- has been received today by the opposite party no. 2, therefore, he has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending before the trial court is quashed.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non- compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.
Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed.
The entire proceedings of charge-sheet no. 30 of 2016 dated 30.10.2015 in Criminal Case No. 315 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Hemand and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2015, under Section 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Aligarh against the applicants are quashed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Sanjeet