Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6293 of 2016 Applicant :- Saurabh @ Saurabh Singhal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Abhisekh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2.
This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 25.4.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, in State Case No.
484 of 2015, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned State case.
The present application came up for admission on 01.03.2016 and this Court passed the following interim order:-
"Heard Sri R.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri I.B. Yadav, learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 484 of 2015 under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar and the order dated 25.4.2015 passed in the aforesaid case.
The marriage between applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized in the year 2012.
After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material brought on record, I find that applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, there is no justification for quashing the prosecution of the aforementioned case.
The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Saurabh @ Saurabh Singhal, Smt. Anjana and Sunil Kumar is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that in case the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
It is made clear that the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
So far as applicant no. 4 is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that she is unmarried sister of applicant no.1 and the allegation levelled against her are wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against her. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks at the address given in the application.
Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Bench.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case against applicant no. 4, namely, Km. Chitra, shall remain stayed.
It is made clear that proceedings of the present case shall go on against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2, if there is no legal impediment."
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 01.03.2016, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, to which no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicants.
However, subsequently, it appears that during the pendency of the present application, the parties have entered into a compromise and consequently a joint affidavit has been filed in the application which is duly sworn by the applicant No. 4 and the opposite party No. 2. From the perusal of the joint affidavit, it is apparent that the parties have settled their dispute by means of a compromise entered into outside the Court. In accordance with the terms of the compromise so arrived at between the parities, the applicant No. 1 Saurabh @ Saurabh Singhal, the husband of the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Gargi Goyal alias Disha, have mutually agreed to file a suit for divorce in terms of section 13 B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Accordingly, divorce suit No. 815 of 2017 Saurabh Kumar and Smt. Gargi alias Disha came to be filed in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar and the said suikt is reported to be pending.
Pursuant to the aforesaid compromise as noted herein above, State Case No. 484 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 133 of 2014, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, came to be decided, vide judgement and order dated 25.4.2018. It may be noted here that this Court, vide order dated 01.03.2016 has granted interim protection only to the applicant No. 4 and in respect of applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 the application was dismissed. A perusal of judgement dated 25.4.2018 passed by the Court below will go to show that the first informant i.e. the opposite party No. 2, herein did not lead any evidence on the ground that she has no grievance against her in-laws. The certified copy of the said judgement dated 25.4.2018 has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 to the joint affidavit filed in Court today.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the compromise so entered between the parties outside the Court, the proceedings of State case giving rise to the present application under section 482 Cr.
P. C. have already been decided in favour of the applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, this Court considering the judgement passed by the Court below coupled with the fact that the said judgement is the outcome of the compromise so entered between the parties outside the Court may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned State case insofar as they relate to the applicant No. 4. He further submits that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P. C. may itself quash the proceedings instead of relegating the parties to the Court below to do complete justice between the parties.
Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the facts noted herein above. He fairly submits that in case the proceedings of the above mentioned State case are quashed by this Court insofar as they relate to the applicant No. 4, the first informant/opposite party No. 2 cannot have any grievance in view of the compromise entered into by her outside the Court.
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 State Case No. 484 of 2015, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar insofar as they relate to the applicant No. 4 are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 HSM