Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6634 of 2019 Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Radhey Shyam Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 who has filed his vakalatnam on behalf of opposite party no.2 today, is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no. 94 of 2011 dated 07.10.2011, under Section 307 I.P.C. , P.S. Lohta, District Varanasi arising out of Case Crime No.169 of 2011 and Session Trial No. 818 of 2011 (State Vs. Pramod Kumar Prajapati) pending in the Court of Special judge Prevention of Corruption (U.P. S. E. B.)/ Sixth Additional District and Session Judge, Varanasi.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is husband of opposite party no.2 (Smt. Rekha Devi). On account of matrimonial dispute between the parties concerned, the opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. dated 01.08.2011 registered as Case Crime No. 169 of 2011, under Section 307 I.P.C. against the applicant, in which charge sheet has been submitted on 07.10.2011 against the applicant. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 has filed another case being complaint case No. 208 of 2014 (Rekha Vs. Pramod), under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, PS Khuthan, District Jaunpur against the applicant (husband) and his parents. In the said case the applicant and other co-accused persons were summoned by summoning order dated 23.01.2015 to face trial. The applicant filed an application 482 No. 3677 of 2016 before this Court against the complaint case No. 208 of 2014 and summoning order dated 23.01.2015 passed therein, in which this Court by order dated 10.02.2016 referred the matter to Mediation between the parties concerned.
In the aforesaid background of the fact, the settlement took place between the parties, mediation succeeded and settlement agreement was signed between the parties concerned on 05.07.2016. In view of the settlement as made between the parties, they agreed to withdraw the cases pending, if any, against each other in any Court. Under the circumstances, this Court by order dated 21.09.2017 allowed the application under Section 482 No. 3677 of 2016 of the applicant. The order dated 21.09.2017 appended as Annexure No.4 to the application. It is further submitted that regarding the present case a joint compromise application dated 19.01.2018 was filed by the applicant and opposite party no.2 before trial court which was rejected by the trial court by order dated 01.11.2018. The compromise application dated 19.01.2018 and order dated 01.11.2018 are appended as Annexure Nos. 7 and 8 to the application.
Aggrieved by the order dated 01.11.2018, the applicant again preferred application Under Section 482 No. 46337 of 2018 which was finally disposed of by order dated 19.12.2018, which is reproduced herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing entire proceedings of S.T. No.818 of 2011 State Vs. Pramod Kumar Prajapati, Case Crime No.169 of 2011 under Section 307 IPC PS Lohta distt. Varanasi, Court of Special Judge Prevention of Corruption (U.P.S.E.B.)/Sixth Addl. Distt. and Sess. Judge, Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have amicably compromised their dispute, therefore, the aforesaid case may be decided in terms of the compromise between the parties.
Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the petitioners to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the aforesaid case."
It is submitted that pursuant to above order dated 19.12.2018 the applicant again submitted a joint compromise application dated 10.01.2019 before the Trial Court appended as Annexure No. 9 to the application, which has been verified by the Trial Court by order dated 10.01.2019 with the observation that compromise application dated 10.01.2019 has been verified in presence of parties concerned. The parties have also apprised the court that they are living as husband and wife together and now frayed relation between them has come to an end. The verification order dated 10.01.2019 has been filed by the applicant as Annexure No. 10 to the application.
Since all the parties concerned are present before this Court through their counsel, therefore, this application is being disposed of with the consent of the parties concerned at this stage itself in terms of compromise dated 10.01.2019 as indicated above. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that under the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the relief as claimed by the applicant is liable to be allowed in view of the law laiddown by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675.
In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial disputes and it is not related to a heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.
Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion.
In view of the above, criminal proceedings of the Session Trial No. 818 of 2011 (State Vs. Pramod Kumar Prajapati) arising out of Case Crime No. 169 of 2011, P.S.-Lohta, District-Varanasi pending in the Court of Special judge Prevention of Corruption (U.P. S. E. B.)/ Sixth Additional District and Session Judge, Varanasi are quashed.
The application is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 25.2.2019/AKT