Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7477 of 2017 Applicant :- Pratham Loveleen And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Shri Pankaj Satsangi, Advocate, has filed his appearance slip on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today. Taken on record.
2. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today. Taken on record.
3. Heard Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Pankaj Satsangi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and; learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet No.01 of 2016 dated 3.11.2016 as well as proceedings of Case No.3357 of 2016 (State Vs. Pratham Loveleen and others) in Case Crime No.94 of 2016, under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Farrukhabad Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, pending before Magistrate 2nd (FTC) Farrukhabad.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant 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) the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurance as alleged;
(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos and;
(vi) the parties have dissolved their marriage. The marriage having been dissolved by the order of Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dated 18.09.2018 in HMA No. 785 of 2018 that both parties acknowledge. Copy of the order passed by the Family Court, noted above, has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed today. The said supplementary affidavit is the joint affidavit of applicant no. 1 and father of opposite party no. 2.
7. In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed, it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto bitterly estranged couple and their families. Therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.
9. 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.
10. 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 proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
11. The present application is accordingly allowed.
12. The amount of Rs. 30,000/- that is lying in deposit with the Mediation Centre may be returned to the applicants forthwith.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Prakhar