Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Restoration Application No. 2 of 2018
1. Heard K. D. Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. S.P.S. Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 17.04.2018 passed by His Lordship (Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava, J.). The applicant has filed a recall application dated 17.04.2015 seeking recall of the order dated 12.04.2018. The recall application has been duly supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Girja Shanker Sen, who is junior of learned counsel for the applicant. Reason for the absence of learned counsel for the applicant at the relevant point of time has sufficiently been explained in the affidavit filed alongwith the recall application.
3. Accordingly, the recall application is allowed. The order dated 17.04.2018 dismissing the present application for want of prosecution is recalled. The present application is restored to its original number and status.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 YK
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard K. D. Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. S.P.S. Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1939 of 2014 arising out of charge sheet no. 308 of 2014 dated 09.10.2014 in respect of Case Crime No. 444 of 2014 under Section, 323, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. (State Vs. Smt. Sualiha) P.S.- Auraiya, District-Auraiya pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya
3. The present application came up for admission on 24.11.2015 and the following order was passed:-
"S/Sri P.S. Jadon and S.P.S. Rathaur, learned counsels have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the O.P. No.2.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and Sri S.P.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
Let the opposite parties file counter affidavit within one month.
Applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List in the week commencing 19.1.2015.
Till further orders of this Court, further proceedings in Criminal Case No.1939 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.444 of 2014, State vs. Sanjeev Kumar Bajpai, under sections 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Auraiya. ."
4. During the pendency of the present application before this Court,, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute by way of settlement agreement.
5. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1801 of 2014 was filed before this Court wherein order dated 20.08.2015 was passed whereby the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. The order dated 20.08.2015 is reproduced herein below:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition has been filed by Smt. Rama Awasthi with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.11.2013 passed by respondent no. 1 and the order dated 16.12.2013 passed by respondent no. 3.
Learned counsel for the parties made a joint request that this matter which arises out of matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties that this F.I.R. has been lodged on account of matrimonial dispute which may be settled by way of mediation, it is directed that the respondent no. 4 shall deposit Rs. 5,000/- before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad within a period of 15 days from today. The Mediation Centre shall thereafter issue notice to the respondent no. 4. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the petitioner on her appearance before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
The mediation proceedings shall be concluded within a period not exceeding three months from the date of initiation of the proceedings.
The interim order granted earlier shall continue till the conclusion of the mediation proceedings. List thereafter."
6. Ultimately the parties arrived at accordingly a settlement agreement was signed agreement on 18.11.2015. Clause 6 of the settlement agreement provides for the terms and conditions of settlement so arrived at between the parties. The same is quoted hereunder:
" 6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto:
a. That the husband Dr. Rohit Awasthi (Resp. no. 4-husband) and Smt. Rama Awasthi (Ptitioner-wife) were having some matrimonial dispute in which they have resolved by means of present mediation proceedings. The settlement is also binding on the families of each other and the family is also bound to honour the settlement.
b. That the husband and wife have decided to divorce each other by means of mutual divorce for which they will take up appropriate proceedings before Family Court. The wife undertakes to visit the Family Court, Auraiya to take part in the mutual divorce proceedings which would culminate in a decree of divorce for both the parties.
c. That today, the husband has paid Rs. 30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lacs only) to his wife at permanent alimony amount through four demand drafts in favour of Rama Bajpeya. The particular of the drafts is below:
D. D. No. Dated Amount Issuing Bank noted drafts to Smt. Rama Awasthi and she has acknowledged the same before the Mediators. The wife undertakes that after the payment of these drafts nothing is due against each other.
d. That the husband has returned a gold ring to the wife and she has accepted it.
e. That the husband has also returned High School Certificate to the wife and she has accepted the same.
f. That it has been agreed between the parties that all the criminal and civil cases filed by them against each other or their family members including case crime no. 122 of 2012 u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Bala, District-Auraiya shall be withdrawn/set aside/got quashed in terms of the settlement by the parties by filing applications before the court concerned within two month from today.
g. That parties have no objection if the Hon'ble Court quashes the proceedings pending before the court below.
h. That the husband and wife are free to live their live of that choice and they have no grievance against each other in future.”
7. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, it has been stated that the terms and conditions of settlement agreement so arrived at between the parties, has been acted upon. One of the conditions in the settlement agreement is regarding withdrawal of the cases filed by the parties against each other. It is pursuant to the aforesaid condition of the settlement agreement that the parties are willing for final decision.
8. On the facts as noted above, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have already entered into a settlement agreement, therefore no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the proceedings of the above mentioned State case pending. He further submits that this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may itself quash the proceedings of the present case looking into the compromise so entered into between the parties in the interest of justice instead of relegating the parties to the court below.
9. Mr. S.P.S. Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the factum of the compromise/settlement agreement so entered into between the parties, which is explicit from the settlement agreement dated 18.11.2015. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid settlement agreement dated 18.11.2015, no further cause of action survives with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned State case, which came into existence subsequent to the first information report lodged by the opposite party no.2 herself.
10. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
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.
11. In the aforesaid judgments, 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 judgments noted above has been explained in detail.
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1939 of 2014 arising out of charge sheet no. 308 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 373 of 2011 dated 09.10.2014 in respect of Case Crime No. 444 of 2014 under Section, 323, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. (State Vs. Smt. Sualiha) under Section 406 I.P.C. P.S.-Auraiya, District-Auraiya pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya, are hereby quashed.
14. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 YK