Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28762 of 2016 Applicant :- Nagma Bano And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amitabh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Amitabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Satish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the Charge Sheet No. 01 of 2016, dated 26.6.2016, giving rise to the Case No. 33436 of 2016 (State Vs. Mohammad Ameen and others), arising out of Case Crime No.
334 of 2015, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, Disrict Kanpur Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
The present application came up for admission on 29.9.2016 and the following interim order was passed:
"Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA is present for the State.
The applicants through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 26.6.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 33436 of 2016 (State vs. Mohammad Ameen and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 334 of 2015, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar and further prayed that the aforesaid proceeding be stayed.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no overt act has been assigned to the applicants. Applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2 are married Nanad of the victim and applicant no. 3 is Mausiya Sas of the victim. It is further submitted that applicants are living separately and they have no concern with the victim as it appears from the ration card. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 Law Suit (SC) 716.
In view of the above discussion, matter requires consideration. Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.
Counter affidavit may be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within a week thereafter.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, further proceeding of Case No. 33436 of 2016 (State vs. Mohammad Ameen and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 334 of 2015, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar shall remain stayed."
During the pendency of the present proceedings, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise. Accordingly, vide order dated 25.7.2017, the parties were directed to appear before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar for verification of the compromise and in turn, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar was to submit a report along with the verified compromise to this Court. For ready reference, the order dated 25.7.2017 is reproduced hereunder:-
"Learned counsel for both the sides submitted that both sides have arrived at a settlement. Copy of the said settlement has been filed along with affidavit.
Original settlement is with the parties themselves.
Both the parties are directed to appear before C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar where the case no.33436 of 2016 (State Vs. Mohammad Ammen and others) under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kidwai Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar is pending.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that proceedings of the above case has been stayed by this Court.
Therefore, before getting verification of the compromise through court concerned it is clarified that for the purpose of verification of the compromise proceedings of the trial court should not be construed as stayed and trial court will be at liberty to verify the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that original compromise will be filed before the C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar, within the time as stipulated by this Court.
Both parties are directed to appear before C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar on 16 August 2017. Learned C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar will verify the compromise, which will be filed by the parties before C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar on the same date.
Learned C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar after verification will submit report along with verified compromise within two weeks.
List on 4 September 2017.
Interim order, if any, shall remain in force till the next date of listing."
However, the order dated 25.7.2017 was not complied with, and accordingly, the Court passed the following order on 16.11.2017:-
"Vide order dated 25.07.2017 passed by this Court, parties have been directed to obtain verification of their compromise deed by the court concerned at Kanpur Nagar. Applicants seek two weeks' time to do the needful at their end.
List this case in the first week of December 2017.
Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing."
However, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no report of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, verifying the compromise or the verified compromise itself. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the opposite party No.2 dated 25.5.2017. He has referred to the terms of the compromise which are recorded in notary affidavit dated 19.5.2017 jointly signed by the opposite party No.2 and Mohammad Ameen husband of the opposite party No.2 Smt. Shabnoor Bano. He, further, submits that pursuant to the aforesaid compromise, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- has been paid to the opposite party No.2 by way of a demand draft dated 18.4.2017. In the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an application dated 19.4.2017 was filed by the opposite party no.2 Smt. Shabnoor Bano stating therein that Case No. 242 of 2016, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar be decided in terms of the application dated 19.4.2017, i.e. the case be dismissed as not pressed. On the basis of the aforesaid application, the above mentioned case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided vide order dated 19.4.2017 itself, and consequently, the above mentioned case was dismissed as not pressed. Subsequently, the opposite party No.2 Sabnoor Bano filed an application dated 22.5.2017 in Case No. 33436 of 2016 (State Vs. Mohammad Ameen and others), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid application the opposite party No.2 has categorically stated that she has been granted talak by her husband which is admitted to her, as such she does not wish to reside with her husband Mohammad Ameen, therefore, the proceedings of the above mentioned case be terminated.
On the matter being taken up today, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the dispute between the parties is primarily a matrimonial dispute and the same has been settled outside the Court, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case. He, therefore, submits that even though the orders dated 25.7.2017 and 16.11.2017, referred to above, have not been complied with yet the proceedings of the above mentioned State case are not liable to be continued in view of the admitted settlement which has taken place between the parties. He, therefore, submits that this court instead of prolonging the matter may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned State case in interest of justice, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Mr. Satish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, does not dispute the factum regarding the compromise so arrived at between the parties outside the Court. It is thus urged by him that since the opposite party No.2 has herself settled the dispute, which is primarily a matrimonial dispute, outside the court, therefore, no cause of action survives with opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned State case, which has come into existence on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by her.
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 Case No. 33436 of 2016 (State Vs. Mohammad Ameen and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 334 of 2015, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, Disrict Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Arshad