Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35882 of 2019 Applicant :- Rohit And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Sri Tarun Jha, learned Advocate has filed compromise affidavit along with his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet No. 405 of 2016 dated 30.12.2016, cognizance order dated 23.1.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 327 of 2018 (State vs. Rohit and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 201 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Premnagar, district Jhansi.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants no. 1, 2 and 3 are husband, father-in-law and mother- in-law of opposite party no. 2. The marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized on 25.11.2013 with opposite party no. 2, but at that time, on account of acrimonious relation between them, opposite party no. 2 lodged the impugned FIR on 25.11.2013, which was registered as Case Crime No. 201 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 294 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Premnagar, district Jhansi. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 30.12.2016, on which the Magistrate concerned took cognizance on 23.1.2018. It is next submitted that during the pendency of the case, applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 settled their dispute and after compromise they are living together since January, 2018. In paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of the application, it is mentioned that now the parties do not want to prosecute the present case and from the wedlock of applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2, one male baby was also born and both are leading their life happily.
Learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts. Opposite party No. 2 in her compromise affidavit has also taken the same stand.
It is submitted that no compromise application has yet been filed before the concerned court below, where criminal proceeding is pending against the applicants and requested to allow the applicants to move compromise application before the concerned court below.
Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, as such said compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.
On the request made by learned counsel for the applicants three weeks time is allowed to the applicants to file compromise application before the concerned court below.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case such compromise application is filed by the applicants before it within aforesaid period, 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 applicants 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 applicants in the aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Sumaira