Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6736 of 2018 Applicant :- Monu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sarvanand Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 who has filed Vakalatnama today which is taken on record and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 26.4.2017 as well as proceeding in Case No.655 of 2017 (State Vs. Monu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.42 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C.and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the parties have stated that present proceedings pertain to matrimonial dispute between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2. During proceedings before the court below, they have arrived at a compromise and in terms hereof decided to live separately. One time maintenance has also been agreed which the applicants intend to pay shortly as per the conditions stipulated in the compromise. Compromise and affidavit in support thereof has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit. However, the same was rejected by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Ghaziabad on the ground that proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of compromise as some of the accused have not obtained bail.
Without entering into legality and propriety of the order dated 3.11.2017, I find that the fact remains as admitted by the counsel for the opposite party no.2 that it being matrimonial dispute, the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute amicably out of the court and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that his client has no objection, if the proceedings impugned in the present application are quashed in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averment made in the complaint which transpires that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute amicably.
In view of law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab and another in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24 September, 2012, the aforesaid proceeding is hereby quashed.
Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., accordingly stands allowed.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 MN/-