Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28798 of 2018 Applicant :- Mohit Bindal And 5 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Mishra,Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sharad Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; Mr. Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and; learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet nos. 207 of 2015 dated 21.10.2015 and 207A of 2015 dated 02.06.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.93792 of 2015 (State Vs. Mohit Bindal), arising out of Case Crime No. 408 of 2015, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 354B, 498A I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station- Brahmpuri, District- Meerut , pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case had been lodged against the applicant no. 1 and his family members but that neither there was any criminal intent on part of any party nor any criminal offence had actually occurred.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-
(i) though the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties;
(ii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iii) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos;
(iv) the parties have decided to dissolve their marriage. In this regard, a petition for dissolution of the marriage between the parties has been filed before Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut being Petition No. 1352 of 2018.
(v) further, the applicant no. 1 has agreed to pay to opposite party no. 2, Rs.7,25,000/- towards full and final settlement of all her money claim against that applicant for alimony or otherwise upon decree of divorce being granted.
(vi) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
5. In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto bitterly estranged couple and their families;
6. Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel has filed a personal affidavit (short counter affidavit) of the opposite party no. 2 and he does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. In fact, paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the short counter affidavit read as under :
"3. That it is true that after the said matrimonial dispute a compromise the parties and on 1007.2018 a compromise have occurred between both the parties and a notary affidavit has been prepared in this regard, a copy of the notary affidavit is being filed herewith and marked as Annexurre No. CA-1 to this affidavit.
4. That the answering respondents is agreed with the terms and condition of the said compromise and she has no objection if the proceeding of the present case has been quashed by this Hon'ble Court as per terms and condition of the said compromise.
5. That it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the office to take this affidavit as the part of original application and further be pleased to pass the order as per terms and conditions of the compromise dated 10.07.2018 in the interest of justice."
7. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being a matrimonial dispute that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing such a prosecution to proceed any further.
8. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
9. The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 19.9.2018 Lbm/-