Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26481 of 2013 Applicant :- Nizamuddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amir Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Sanjay Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Amir Khan learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 843 of 2012 (Smt. Madina Vs. Nizamuddin and others), under Sections 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Shikarpur, District Bulandshahar pending in the Court of IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr.
The present application came up for admission on 06.05.2014 and this Court passed the following interim order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.843 of 2012 under Section 406 I.P.C. as well as impugned summoning order dated 16.04.2013 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Bulandshahar.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the matter was already settled between the parties initially on 28.12.2011 and later on 25.08.2013. It is further contended that the entire amount and articles have been returned back to the opposite party no.2 by the applicant.
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within a period of four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Opposite party no.2 may also file counter affidavit within the same period. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicants, two weeks, thereafter, is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case."
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.
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 appears 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 affidavit dated 17.11.2015 has been filed in the complaint case under Section 406 I.P.C. which also has remained pending on account of the interim order dated 06.05.2014 passed by this Court.
In addition to the above, the present applicant and two others filed Criminal Misc. Application No.15298 of 2013 (Nizamuddin and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) before this Court challenging the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 933 of 2012 (Smt. Madina Vs. Nizamuddin and others) under Sections 498A and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, which has been allowed by this Court today by quashing the proceedings of the Compliant Case No. 933 of 2015 on the basis of compromise so entered between the parties.
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. Sanjay Srivastava, 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 subsequent filing of the application 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. 843 of 2012 (Smt. Madina Vs. Nizamuddin and others), under Sections 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Shikarpur, District Bulandshahar pending in the Court of IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 YK