Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47378 of 2019 Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Sri Sarvesh Pandey, learned Advocate, has filed appearance today on behalf of the opposite party no.2. Taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sarvesh Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 737 of 2017 (Smt. Shobha Vs. Saurabh Kumar & Others), under Sections- 323, 498A, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Jaswantnagar, District- Etawah, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Etawah.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case had been lodged against the applicant no. 1 and his family members but that neither there was any criminal intent on the part of any party nor any criminal offence had actually occurred.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-
(i) the only dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties;
(ii) the complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence 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) at present, the parties have resolved their differences such that the parties are living together in matrimony;
(vi) therefore, in the changed circumstance, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
6. In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto estranged couple and their families;
7. Sri Sarvesh Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. In fact, paragraph nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the compromise affidavit reads as under :
"6. That the parties have settled their disputes amicably without any pressure and thereafter applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 developed family relations and they wish to reside peacefully in the village in future without any kind of disruption in their future lives.
7. That the deponent has decided not to prosecute to the applicants in the impugned case, hence there is no objection, if this Hon'ble Court may quash the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.
8. That on 11.03.2019, the deponent has filed a withdrawal application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Etawah for dismissed the complaint on the basis that she residing with three years daughter namely Pari with her husband and all disputed has been resolved with mutual consent and the photocopy of the withdrawal application dated 11.03.2019 has already filed by the applicants in his aforesaid application as annexure no.6. The true certified copy of the withdrawal application dated 11.03.2019 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.
9. That the learned Additional Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Etawah has arbitrarily refused the withdrawal application dated 11.03.2019 and passed the order dated 13.09.2019 and directed to the applicants to surrender before the court and the copy of the order dated 13.09.2019 has already been annexed by the applicant in their application as annexure no.7."
8. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being matrimonial discord that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their entire satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.
9. 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 proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
10. The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 S.Chaurasia