Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7766 of 2019
Applicant :- Prateek Agrawal And 02 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
By way of the instant application, the applicants have prayed for staying the effect and operation of bailable warrant order dated 2.6.2016 and non bailable warrant order dated 24.5.2017 passed by C.J.M. Etawah in Case No.1583/2015 (State vs. Prateek Agrawal and others, arising out of Case Crime No.501/2014, under section 498A, 323, 506, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS.Kotwali, District Etawah and further prayer is to quash the aforesaid orders.
Both the parties husband Prateek Agrawal, the applicant no.1 and Smt.Anjali Agrawal-opposite party no.2 are present in Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel and on interaction being made between both the parties whereupon opposite party no.2 Anjali Agrawal has come out straightway that she does not want to have any relation with her husband-applicant no.1 Prateek Agrawal- for specific reasons which she cannot disclose in Court. However, she has no objection if the First Information Report lodged by her is not acted upon and she does not want to prosecute applicant no.1 and other impleaded as father and mother of applicant no.1. However, the proceeding may be terminated or closed as disclosed in para 5 of the compromise affidavit.
Compromise affidavit has been filed on behalf of both the applicant no.1 Prateek Agrawal, the husband and opposite party no.2 Anjali Agrawal and in para-5 both the parties have agreed upon to settle their dispute. Contents of para 5 are quoted below:
"That, the in present case, Charge-sheet no.156/2015 dated 16.05.2015 arising out of Case Crime No.501/2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah the proceedings stayed by this Hon'ble Court, due to this reason in this case compromise has not held in between the parties. At present time both parties applicants and opposite party no.2 agreed for compromise in present case and further given undertaking they have not initiated any proceedings against such order.'
It has been further added that in this case, if proceeding of the aforesaid case is allowed to go on then that will not result in conviction and possibility of conviction would become bleak. Therefore, proceedings in the aforesaid case initiated by opposite party no.2 against the present applicant is liable to be quashed in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. have no objection, if this application is allowed and the proceedings are quashed.
In view of the fact that the opposite party no. 2 does not want to pursue the case any further as stated by her as the matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.
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), further proceedings of bailable warrant order dated 2.6.2016 and non bailable warrant order dated 24.5.2017 passed by C.J.M. Etawah in Case No.1583/2015 (State vs. Prateek Agrawal and others, arising out of Case Crime No.501/2014, under section 498A, 323, 506, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS.Kotwali, District Etawah, are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below for necessary information and follow up action.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Rk