Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39357 of 2016 Applicant :- Laik Ahmad And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arunesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ken Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Sri Arunesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Ken Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 20th November, 2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Agra, in Case No. 1829 of 2015 (Smt. Shahnaz vs. Laik Ahmad & Others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 and 452 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra as well as the entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case.
The present application came up for admission on 21st December, 2016 and the Court passed following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since it is a matrimonial dispute, an opportunity be granted to the parties for reconciliation / settlement of their dispute by way of mediation. Applicants are also willing to settle the matter through mediation.
I agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.
The matter is referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court. The applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of demand draft / pay order in the name of Registrar General A/c, Allahabad High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre within a period of six weeks from today. After deposit of the aforesaid money, office shall send a notice to the opposite party no.2 fixing a date to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The aforesaid amount shall be payable to the opposite party no.2 on his/her appearance before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The Mediation Centre will submit its report in the matter within three months.
All the opposite parties may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this case on 18.4.2017 before the appropriate Bench alongwith the report of Mediation Centre.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings against the applicants in complaint case no.1829 of 2015 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 406, 452, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sikandara District Agra pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Agra shall remain stayed.
If the amount, as directed above, is not deposited by the applicants within the aforesaid period, the stay order shall automatically come to an end and the office shall immediately list this case for further orders before the Court."
Pursuant to the order of the Court dated 21st December, 2016, matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad, wherein the parties arrived at a settlement. Accordingly, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad recorded terms of the settlement agreement so entered between the parties on 17th May, 2017. Thereafter Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad has referred the matter to the Court along with its report dated 17th May, 2017 stating therein that the mediation between the parties has completed as the parties have arrived at an agreement. The original settlement agreement along with report of the Medication and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad dated 17th May, 2018 are on the record.
Clause-6 of the Settlement Agreement dated 17th May, 2017, which provides the terms and conditions of the settlement is being reproduced herein below:
"6. That the following settlement has been arrived at between Parties hereto:-
a) That the marriage of Sri Laik Ahmad (Applicant No. 1- husband) and Smt. Shahnaz Sultana (O.P. No. 2-wife) was solemnized on 07/06/2009. Out of their wedlock, they have a daughter Zigra Khan, aged 06 years old. After some time of the marriage, the relation between the parties became strained and hence they started living separate since last year.
b) That the dispute between the parties is irreconcilable, hence parties mutually divorced on 31.02.20017, as per their customary law (mentioned in divorce petition no. 338/2017, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi dated 02.05.2017).
c) That Sri Laik Ahmad (Applicant No. 1) and Smt. Shahnaz Sultana (O.P. No.2) had produced "Sulahnama", dated 31.03.2017, signed by them in presence of witnesses and the same has been annexed with this settlement agreement and shall be treated as part of this settlement agreement.
d) That in pursuance of "Sulahnama" Sri Laik Ahmad (Applicant No. 1-husband) had agreed to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lakhs only) to Smt. Shahnaz Sultana (O.P. No.2), as permanent alimony inclusive of Mehar, amount of Iddat, maintenance etc., as mentioned in the Sulahnama. This is the full and final alimony.
e) That, that applicant-husband has already handed over a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) to Smt. Shahnaz Sultana (O.P. No.2) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same, before the mediators.
f) That, in compliance of the Inerim Settlement dated 26.04.2017, today, Sri Laik Ahmad (Applicant No.1- husband) has produced one more demand draft of Rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lakhs only), DD No. 834188, dated 15.05.2017, issued by the Canara Bank, deemed in the name of Smt. Shahnaz Sultana D/o Allauddin Shekh, and the same has been handed over to Smt. Shahnaz Sultana (O.P. No.2); and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
g) That, in compliance of the Interim Settlement dated 26.04.2017, parties have filed divorce petition no. 338 of 2017, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi dated 02.05.2017; and the certified copy of the same has been produced and annexed to this settlement agreement.
h) That the permanent alimony inclusive of Mehar, amount of Iddat, maintenance etc, has been paid and the dispute is finally settled.
i) That it has been further agreed between the parties that all Criminal, Civil and other cases pending before the parties would be withdrawn by filing suitable application before the competent Court/Authority where possible, within one month from today and other cases will be sought to be quashed under an order of the Hon'ble Court."
In compliance to the terms of the Settlement Agreement a demand draft of Rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lacs only) was handed over to the opposite party no.2 and further a divorce suit had been filed in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. Certified copy of the plaint of the divorce suit has also been brought on record of the mediation proceedings.
On the basis of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a matrimonial dispute and the same has been settled, as is evident from the Settlement Agreement dated 17th May, 2017. He, therefore, submits that in view of the agreement so entered into between the parties, which also appears to have been acted upon, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case pending. It is, thus, urged that the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case may be quashed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
Sri Ken Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the parties have settled their dispute as evident from the settlement agreement dated 17th May, 2017, no further cause of action survives with the complainant opposite party no.2 to pursue the compliant filed by her. He, therefore, submits that the opposite party no.2 has no objection in case the proceedings of the above mentioned case are quashed.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the following cases:
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, and
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab;
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
In the aforesaid judgments, 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 case, as the parties have settled their dispute by way of Settle Agreement dated 17th May, 2017.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 1829 of 2015 (Smt. Shahnaz vs. Laik Ahmad & Others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 and 452 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Agra, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Sushil/-