Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2835 of 2016 Applicant :- Smt. Shivani And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Naresh Singh holding brief of Mr. Nagendra Pratap Singh, the 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 28.10.2015 passed by A.C.J.M, Court No.6, Moradabad in complaint case No.972/2015 (Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Shivani Sharma and others), under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
The present application came up for admission on 02.02.2016, and this Court passed the following interim order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant no.1 is married with the son of opposite party no.2. Proceedings under sections 498-A, 377, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act were initiated on behalf of the applicants against opposite party no.2 and her family members. Present complaint has been filed on the basis of false facts. Applicants have no concern with the allegations levelled against them in the complaint.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 for filing counter affidavit within four weeks.
State may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on 20.7.2016 before appropriate Court.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Case No.972 of 2015 (Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Shivani Sharma and others) under sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No.3, Moradabad shall remain stayed as against the applicants."
During the pendency of the present application, it appears that the parties entered into a compromise to amicably settle their dispute. On the basis of the compromise so entered between the parties, the deed of compromise dated 07.06.2016 was duly prepared, which is on the record as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the compromise application.
Pursuant to the aforesaid deed of compromise, the opposite party No.1 Smt. Shivani Vishnoi filed suit No.584 of 2016 (Smt. Shivani Vishnoi Vs. Pankaj Sharma) in terms of Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby a decree of divorce by mutual consent was prayed for.
The aforesaid suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 11.02.2017, thereafter, a compromise application duly supported by the affidavit of Mr. Munish Kumar, who has filed the present application wherein does not seen no further cause of action survive with the opposite party No.2. The proceedings of the complaint case giving rise to the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be quashed.
Mr. Naresh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Nagendra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 does not dispute the fact that the filing of the suit under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the applicant No.1 Smt. Shivani Vishnoi. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid, the opposite party No.2 cannot have any further cause of action surviving the pursue the complaint case filed by him.
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 complaint case No.972/2015 (Smt. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Smt. Shivani Sharma and others), under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.8.2018 cks