Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16797 of 2017 Applicant :- Rooksar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to correct the numbering of the applicants in the present application, during the course of the day.
2. Joint affidavit has been filed today. Taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Amarjeet Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and; learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 14.07.2016, cognizance order dated 17.09.2016 as well as entire proceeding in Case No. 8235 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 197 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 354A (1), 376, 506, 325 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the son of applicant no. 2 namely Mohd. Shahzad and the opposite party no. 2 Smt. Shaima.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that:-
(i) though the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between son of applicant no. 2 namely Mohd. Shahzad and the opposite party no. 2 Smt. Shaima;
(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;
(v) the parties have dissolved their marriage.
(vi) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.
8. During pendency of the present proceedings, the matter had been settled through compromise reached between the parties. The proceedings drawn by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were dismissed by order dated 09.03.2019 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Execution Case No. 82 of 2017. Copy of that compromise as also the order passed there on have been annexed with the joint affidavit filed today.
9. Paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the said joint affidavit reads as under :
"4. That during the pendency of the above noted case the son of the applicant no.2 namely Mohd. Shahjad i.e. deponent no.1 and opposite party no.2 entered into compromise outside of the court and decided to withdraw their case filed against each other.
5. That the son of the applicant no.2 given final alimony to the opposite party no.2 of Rs.60,000/- and the opposite party no.2 moved an application with affidavit on 07.03.2019 before the learned court below stating that interference of reputed person of locality we enter into compromise so and no ill will exist between us and also stating that on the basis of compromise do not want to proceed the case in future. So on the basis of compromise the case may be dropped. A true copy of the application alongwith affidavit of opposite party no.2 dated 07.03.2019 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.
6. That deponent no.2 also initiated a proceeding under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. on which the learned court below decided in favour of deponent no.2 to give maintenance to her but he did not comply then the deponent no.2 filed execution case no.82 of 2017 and also initiated a proceeding under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. in which both the deponents appeared before the Family Court Meerut on 09.03.2019 and on the basis of compromise the proceeding under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. and 126(3) Cr.P.C. was dropped by Family Court, Meerut. A certified copy of the order passed by Family Court Meerut dated 09.03.2019 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.2 to this affidavit.
7. That the deponents do not want to proceed the case any further as they have entered into compromise. In the circumstances this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.8235 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.197 of 2015 under Section 498A, 323, 354A (1)/376, 506, 325 IPC and ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Meerut pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut."
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Prakhar