Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14855 of 2021 Applicant :- Mukesh Turaiha And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deisy Pundir,Rahul Singh Tomar
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; Mr. Deisy Pundir, 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 praying for quashing of proceedings of Case No. 11777 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Mukesh Turaiha and others) a well as the charge sheet dated 20.9.2019 arising out of crime no. 667 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act at P.S medial, District Meerut pending in the court C.J.M. 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) the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;
(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) 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;
(v) the parties have dissolved their marriage. The marriage having been dissolved through a decree of C.J.M. Meerut dated 13.7.2021 in compromise through a 'talaknama' that both parties acknowledge.
(vii) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
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;
5. Sri Mr. Deisy PUndir, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. In fact, paragraph no. of the said compromise.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 RPD