Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15298 of 2013 Applicant :- Nizamuddin And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amir Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Jai Singh Chandel
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Amir Khan learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Pushpendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Jai Singh Chandel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar in Complaint Case No. 933 of 2012 (Smt. Madina Vs. Nizamuddin and others), under Sections 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station-Gulaothi, District Bulandshahar as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
The present application came up for admission on 06.05.2013 and this Court passed the following interim order:-
"Heard Sri Amir Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 933 of 2012 (Smt. Madina vs. Nizamuddin & others) under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Gulaothi, District Bulandshahar pending before the IInd A.C.J.M., Bulandshahar as well as the summoning order dated 26.2.2013 The marriage between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized in the year 2006.
After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material brought on record, I find that applicant no.1 is concerned, there is no justification for quashing the prosecution of the aforementioned case.
The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant no.1, namely, Nizamuddin is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicant no.1 appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
It is made clear that the applicant no.1 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
So far as applicant nos. 2 & 3 are concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are the family members of applicant no.1 and the allegation levelled against them are wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against them. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the application. If the requisites for issuing the notice under Registered Postal Cover with Acknowledgment Due are not filed within ten days, this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to any Bench of this Court. Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Bench.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case against applicant nos. 2 & 3, namely, Smt. Aeman Nisha and Rushma Begum, shall remain stayed."
It appears that apart from the above mentioned complaint case, the opposite party no.2 has also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance as well as a complaint case bearing No. 843 of 2012 (Smt. Madina Vs. Nizamuddin) under Section 406 I.P.C.
During the pendency of the present application before this Court, the applicant no.1, who is the husband and opposite party no.2, who is the wife of the applicant no.1 appear to have amicably settled their dispute outside the court. As a consequence of the aforesaid, an application dated 21.08.2015 was filed by the opposite party no.2 in Case No. 1300 of 2013 (Madina Vs. Nizamuddin) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to dismiss the case as not pressed in view of the compromise so entered into between the parties. Consequently, the case was dismissed as not pressed by the court concerned vide order dated 21.08.2015. Subsequently, on the basis of the compromise so entered into between the parties and acted upon in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an application dated 17.11.2015 was filed in Complaint Case No. 933 of 2015 (Madina Vs. Nizamuddin and others) under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act. By means of the said application, it was prayed that the application be accepted and the matter be decided in terms of the compromise so entered into between the parties. This application filed by the opposite party no.2 in the complaint case before the court below is said to be pending on account of interim order passed by this Court. A similar application has also been filed in the case under Section 406 I.P.C.
On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court. Consequently, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case pending. He further submits that as no cause of action survives to pursue the complaint case filed by the opposite party no.2, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case to do complete justice between the parties instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
Mr. Pushpendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Jai Singh Chandel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the settlement so arrived at between the parties outside the court and the subsequent filing of the applications in the three criminal cases by the opposite party no.2 to decided them on the basis of compromise so entered into between the parties. He further submits that once the opposite party no.2 has herself entered into compromise outside the court, she now cannot have any grievance in case the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case are quashed by this Court. It is also urged that even otherwise, the opposite party no.2 cannot have any further cause of action surviving 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.
In the aforesaid judgments, 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 judgements noted above 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 the Complaint Case No. 933 of 2012 (Smt. Madina Vs. Nizamuddin and others), under Sections 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Station District-Gulaothi, District Bulandshahar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs Order Date :- 24.8.2018 YK