Court No. - 40
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22455 of 2019 Applicant :- Rahul Jain And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta,Girijesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No.2 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for the State and Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 656 of 2018 (State Vs. Rahul Jain and Others) as well as Charge Sheet dated 27.08.2018 in Case Crime No. 717 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Prohibition of Dowry Act, Police Station Hapurnagar, District Hapur.
On the matter being taken up, Sri Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Kumar Shukla has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and has stated that the dispute has already been compromised between the parties and he does not want to further pursue the case against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that a compromise has already been entered into between the applicants and opposite party no. 2, which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit, wherein it has been stated that applicant no. 1 Rahul Jain (Husband) shall pay to his wife Rashi Jain a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- as permanent alimony, in which a demand draft of Rs.8,00,000/- will be given to the wife at the time of filing of divorce petition and remaining Rs.6,50,000/- will be paid to the wife at the time of judgment of divorce petition. The contents of the said compromise deed annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit is admitted by the counsel for opposite party no. 2.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 656 of 2018 (State Vs. Rahul Jain and Others) as well as Charge Sheet dated 27.08.2018 in Case Crime No. 717 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Prohibition of Dowry Act, Police Station Hapurnagar, District Hapur, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Fast Track Court, Hapur, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.6.2019 Nadim