Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4869 of 2016 Applicant :- Khursheed Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Maohammd Nadeem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dur Vijay Singh Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Mohammad Nadeem, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Kamrul Hasan, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Dur Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 30.4.2015, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj in Complaint Case No. 1609 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.
Taalgram, District Kannauj as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case. The applicants have also challenged the consequential orders passed in the above mentioned case, including the order by which non bailable warrants were issued against the applicants.
The present application came up for admission on 18.2.2016 and this Court passed the following interim order:
"The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 30.4.2015 as well as N.B.W. and consequential orders passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj in Complaint Case No. 1609 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Further prayer has been made to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned AGA.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that applicants have participated in the mediation proceeding started by the court below. Mediation was not successful. Process of non-bailable warrant has been issued against them. Offences are not made out against them. Complaint has been filed only to create pressure and to harass the applicants. The present complaint has been filed on the basis of false facts.
Matter requires consideration.
Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party no.1. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2.
Steps be taken by Registered Post A.D. 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 31.8.2016 before the appropriate Bench.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case shall remain stayed only against the applicants. "
Subsequent to the aforesaid order, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2. In the counter affidavit it has been averred that during the pendency of the present application, the parties have arrived at a compromise and consequently, the proceedings of the complaint case be quashed by this Court. The opposite party No.2 will not have any grievance, in case the proceedings are quashed.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicants, in which it has been stated that apart from the above mentioned case filed by the opposite party No.2, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were also initiated.
On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an application (Paper No. 9A-1) was filed by the opposite party No.2, whereby it was prayed that the said proceedings may be decided in terms of compromise so entered between the parties.
Consequently, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. came to be decided vide order dated 21.5.2016, on the basis of compromise so entered between the parties.
An application dated 7.5.2016 was filed in the above mentioned complaint case before the Court below praying therein that the complaint case giving rise to the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be decided in terms of compromise so entered between the parties. This Application dated 7.5.2016 is said to be pending before the court below.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a private and matrimonial dispute. The parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and on the basis of the same, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have been decided. Therefore, in the light of the above, it is urged that the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case, giving rise to the present criminal misc. application may be quashed. He further submits that instead of relegating the parties to the court below, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case itself, to do complete justice between the parties.
Mr. Kamrul Hasan, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Dur Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, does not dispute the factum regarding the compromise so entered into between the parties. He further submits that opposite party No.2 has herself filed an affidavit, wherein she has categorically submitted the factum regarding the compromise so entered into between the parties in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He submits that in view of the compromise so entered into between the parties, whereby they have amicably resolved their dispute, no cause of action survives with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned complaint 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 Complaint Case No. 1609 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Taalgram, District Kannauj, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.9.2018/Arshad