Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4596 of 2018 Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Chauhan And 4 Anothers Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh,Vinit Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jayant Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Certified copy of the order dated 30.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court no. 1, Moradabad, filed by the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 24.07.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 610/9/2010 (State Vs. Pushpa Devi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2010, under Sections- 498A, 323, 313, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 10, Moradabad.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that:-
(i) though the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties;
(ii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iii) certain physical injuries had been wrongly claimed by the opposite party no. 2, out of emotional hurt caused and not on account of any physical hurt or injury, as alleged Hence, that allegation may also not stand in the way of the applicants in seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution.
(iv) the parties have dissolved their marriage. The marriage having been dissolved through a decree of Principle Judge, Family Court, Moradabad dated 15.09.2012 in Case No. 889 of 2011;
(v) further, the applicant no. 1 has paid to opposite party no. 2, Rs. 4 lakhs towards full and final settlement of all her money claim against that applicant for alimony or otherwise. Also written compromise claimed between the parties appears to be verified which appears from the certified copy of the order dated 30.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court no. 1, Moradabad and;
(vi) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.
7. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being a matrimonial dispute that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing such a prosecution to proceed any further.
8. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
9. The present application is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 26.9.2018 Prakhar