Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32316 of 2019 Applicant :- Nihal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pt. S.P. Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned Advocate has filed his Vaklatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2, which is taken on record.
A compromise application along with joint affidavit of Nihal Singh, applicant and Smt. Neelam Singh, opposite party No. 2, has also been filed by counsel for the applicant today and the same is also placed on record.
Heard Pt. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the materials available on record.
By means of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 1069 of 2011, under Sections 498-A, 307, 504, 506 IPC, police station Kotwali Mahoba, district Mahoba pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-Ist/FTC-16, Mahoba.
Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts of the case are that the applicant is brother-in-law (Jeth) of opposite party No.
2. The husband of opposite party No. 2 died on 4.6.2011 by committing suicide. On 4.8.2011, opposite party No. 2 lodged first information report for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307, 504, 506 IPC against her brother-in-law (Jeth), the present applicant, father-in-law and mother-in-law registered as Case Crime No. 1069 of 2011 at police station Kotwali Mahoba, district Mahoba alleging inter alia that her marriage was solemnized with Chandan Singh in the year 2007, who died on 4.6.2011. Thereafter her father-in-law, brother-in-law, mother- in-law started physical and mental harassment and torture to opposite party No. 2. On 2.8.2011, the accused persons administered a sleeping tablets to opposite party No. 2 and when she became unconscious, she was admitted to the hospital and left opposite party No. 2 in the hospital. On 4.8.2011, when she reached her matrimonial house she was not allowed to enter into the house and she was beaten and her article article etc. were grabbed by the accused-persons. The injury report of opposite party No. 2 is also on record as annexure No. 2 to the application. As per the opinion of the doctor, injuries are caused by hard and blunt object, which is simple in nature. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge sheet on 20.10.2011 against all the accused-persons and thereafter trial proceeded. During trial other co-accused, Gopal Singh, father-in-law died on 11.6.2017 and mother-in-law, Radharani died on 31.12.2017. Statement of opposite party No. 2 was recorded in the trial as P.W.-1, in which she has supported the prosecution case. Opposite party No. 2 in her statement has also stated that her husband, Chandan Singh married her against the wishes of his family members and accused persons used to quarrel with her husband, therefore he had committed suicide. On 15.2.2019, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant, which was rejected by the trial court by order dated 9.5.2019. Now, at this stage after about eight years, the applicant has preferred this application for invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of this Court for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against him mainly on the ground that now the applicant and opposite party No. 2 have no grievance against each other and they have settled their dispute in presence of some elders of the family and society and compromise has taken place between them outside the court, therefore, aforesaid criminal proceedings against the applicant is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there is serious allegations against the applicant in the first information report and the said allegation has consistently been maintained by opposite party No. 2 in her statement recorded before the trial court. The present application has been filed at a belated stage after about eight years, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
After having heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties, I find that admittedly no such compromise application was moved/filed before the trial court. Whether alleged compromise has actually taken place between the parties with free will of opposite party No. 2 or not, cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The trial is at the advance stage, there is nothing on record of the trial court, as alleged by the learned counsel for the parties before this Court with regard to alleged compromise. In the trial, opposite party No. 2 has supported the prosecution case as PW-1.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to accept the prayer of the applicant at this stage. As such, relief as sought by the applicant by means of this application, is hereby refused.
However, trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties concerned in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this application and the learned trial court shall decide the case uninfluenced by any observations made herein above, strictly in accordance with law.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within three weeks.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Sumaira