Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29157 of 2016 Applicant :- Mustaq Ahmad @ Lal Khan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the orders dated 22.7.2016 and 7.2.2014, passed by Additional Judicial Fatehpur, in Complaint Case No. 641 of 2013 (Rijwana Khatoon Vs. Mohd Irfan @ Munna), under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Malwan, District Fatehpur as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
The present application came up for admission on 30.9.2016 and this Court passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the records.
This matter relates to matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel for the applicants informs that there is possibility of settlement of dispute mediation between the parties, so their matter may be referred for mediation. His request for referring the matter to mediation is accepted.
Let this matter be sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. Before referring this matter, the applicant no.1/husband will deposit a sum of Rs.7,500/- within three weeks from today in the account head of the Registrar General Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad, High Court, Allahabad, which will be paid to opposite party no.2/wife during mediation proceedings. Mediation proceedings will be decided within six months and accordingly report be sent to this Court.
Till next date of listing, proceeding of complaint case no. 641 of 2013, (Rijwana Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Irfan @ Munna) under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Malwan, District Fatehpur, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, shall remain stayed.
List after receipt of report of mediation report.
After depositing the aforesaid amount, notice shall be issued to the parties, and in case the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted above shall automatically stands vacated."
Pursuant to the order dated 30.9.2016, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad, but no agreement could be arrived at between the parties in the mediation proceedings. Consequently, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad submitted a reported dated 21.3.2017, indicating the aforesaid facts and referred the matter to the Court for further orders.
During the pendency of the present application, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute by way of a compromise arrived at between them, outside the Court. Subsequently, the compromise so entered between the parties was reduced to writing by way of compromise deed. The said compromise deed has been brought on the record by means of supplementary affidavit dated 20.8.2018. From the perusal of the deed of compromise, it is apparent that applicant No. 2 Mohd. Irfan @ Munna husband of opposite party No.2 granted talak to the opposite party No.2, which was accepted by her. It was further agreed that permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- shall be paid by the applicant No.2 to the opposite party No.2. This payment of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- has clearly been admitted by opposite party No. 2 in the deed of compromise, referred to above. On the basis of the compromise so entered between the parties, the cases under section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 was prayed to be decided in terms of compromise so entered between the parties. Accordingly, concerned Courts vide separate orders dated 22.4.2018 decided the case under section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 on the basis of aforesaid compromise. The orders dated 22.4.2018 have duly been brought on record by means of the joint supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicants.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a private and matrimonial dispute. The parties have settled their dispute by way of deed of compromise dated 5.3.2018. The opposite party No.2 has accepted the talak granted by applicant No.2 and the amount of permanent alimony has already been paid by applicant No.2 to the opposite party No.2, which is to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/-. On the basis of the said compromise the case under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, as well as Section 125 Cr.P.C., have already been decided.
Therefore, it is urged that no exception can be carved out to the proceedings of the complaint case giving rise to the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As such the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case are also liable to be quashed. He further submits that instead of relegating the parties to the court below, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may itself quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, does not dispute the factum regarding the compromise so entered into between the parties. He submits that in view of the compromise so entered into between the parties, whereby they have amicably resolved their dispute, no further cause of action survives with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned complaint case.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
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, wherein 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 complaint case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 22.7.2016 and 7.2.2014, passed by Additional Judicial Fatehpur, in Complaint Case No. 641 of 2013 (Rijwana Khatoon Vs. Mohd Irfan @ Munna), under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Malwan, District Fatehpur, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.8.2018 Arshad