Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27039 of 2015 Applicant :- Raghvendra Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- M.L. Maurrya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Mohammad Sadab Khan
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri M.L. Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Raghuraj Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.8.2014 (Annexure no.6) passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar whereby, the applicants have been summoned to face trial in complaint case no. 7944 of 2013 (Pallavi Sharma Vs. Nishant Sharma and others), under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Bajariya, District kanpur Nagar as well as order dated 5.8.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar in criminal revision no. 404 of 2014, whereby revision preferred by the applicants against the aforesaid order dated 13.8.2014 has been dismissed.
At the time of filing this application, it was submitted on behalf of the applicants that this is a matrimonial dispute and applicants are willing to settle the matter through mediation, therefore, an opportunity be granted to the parties concerned for reconciliation/settlement of their disputes by way of mediation.
By order dated 23.7.2018 of this Court, this matter was referred to mediation. Pursuant to order dated 23.7.2018 of this Court, parties concerned appeared before the mediation and mediation between the parties concerned succeeded.
As per report dated 26.11.2018 of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court after rounds of meetings on 27.8.2018, 17.9.2018, 8.10.2018, 29.10.2018 and 26.11.2018 mediation succeeded and parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 08.10.2018, which is on record of this case.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that since the mediation between the parties has been succeeded and all the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 8.10.2018 have been fulfilled, therefore, the opposite party no.2 has no objection in case the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants is quashed by this Court.
Keeping in mind the sage advice of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675 to Courts to encourage settlement of marital disputes between contesting spouses so that they do not lose their youthful years in chasing interminable litigations and reiterating the following lines from paragraph 10 of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, I think the interests of justice would be met if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end. The observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court is reads as under:-
"In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in 'negative'. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides."
On making settlement/compromise between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.
Thus, in view of above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is liable to be allowed in terms of aforesaid settlement report of Mediation and Conciliation Centre keeping in view of well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (supra).
Consequently, all other further proceedings of complaint case no. 7944 of 2013 (Pallavi Sharma Vs. Nishant Sharma and others), under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Bajariya, District kanpur Nagar, is hereby quashed.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise/settlement report dated 08.10.2018 of Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 AK Pandey