Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6155 of 2018 Applicant :- Mayank Agarwal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Prakash Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No.602 of 2015 arising out of case crime no.530 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Highway District Mathura, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Mathura.
Heard Sri Bhanu Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.K. Tripathi, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf opposite party no.2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It is contended by learned counsel for both the parties that the present proceedings under challenge pertains to the matrimonial dispute between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.3. It is submitted that on account of matrimonial differences the opposite party no.2 had lodged the first information report which has ultimately culminated in submission of charge sheet. However, now with the intervention of respectable elders and members of society both the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and are living as husband and wife along with their children born from the wedlock in Delhi. In this behalf a compromise was filed before the Trial Court. However, the same was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Mathura on the ground that some of the offence are non compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and based on the compromise the proceedings cannot be quashed. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and 3 has no objection to the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending and in view of the settled law that even offences which are not compoundable in matters of private dispute the proceedings can be quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his case:
1. Murari Lal Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, MANU/SC/1257/2014,
2. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, MANU/SC/0781/2012.
Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, continuation of the proceeding is nothing except abuse of the court's process.
Learned AGA has also been heard, who has submitted that it is the clear case of mutual compromise that has taken place in between the family and in so many words has urged before the Court that the opposite party has no objection if the present application in question is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to 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
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466. 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 expatiated in detail.
In the wake of the compromise arrived at between the parties inter-se if the proceedings of lower court are still allowed to go on, it is apparent that the same shall be a sheer abuse of the court's process. The dockets of the pending cases are already bursting on their seams and the lower Courts must be allowed to engage themselves in more fruitful judicial exercise and not be saddled with matters like the one at hand whose fate is already sealed.
In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, it is deemed proper that in order to meet the ends of justice and avert the abuse of court's process the impugned proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed forthwith. The same therefore, are hereby quashed.
The application stands allowed.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Hasnain