Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41162 of 2014 Applicant :- Smt. Sualiha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,S.M. Nazir Abbas Abedi
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. R. P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. S. M. Nazir Abbas Abedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of the Case No. 477 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 373 of 2011, (State Vs. Smt. Sualiha) under Section 406 I.P.C. P.S.-Delhi Gate, District- Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Meerut.
The present application came up for admission on 23.09.2014 and the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.
Four weeks time is granted to opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of Case No. 477 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 373 of 2011, under Section 406 IPC., P.S. Delhi Gate, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Meerut, shall remain stayed as against the applicant."
In compliance of the order dated 23.09.2014, the parties have exchanged their affidavits, which are on the record.
During the pendency of the present application, it appears that certain other criminal proceedings were initiated by the applicant no.1. One such proceeding initiated by the applicant no.1 was under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
It appears that the Court hearing the case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Act, 2005 referred the matter to the District Mediation and Conciliation Centre and accordingly, the parties went to mediation. In the mediation proceedings, which took place between the parties, a settlement agreement was arrived at, copy of which is on the record as Annexure S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 25.05.2018. In the agreement dated 21.07.2017, there are seven conditions recorded and one of the condition is that both the parties will withdraw each and every civil and criminal cases pending between them.
In the light of the aforesaid clause of the settlement agreement, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the proceedings of the above mentioned State case may be quashed. He further submits that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the aforesaid case as the parties have already settled the dispute by way of compromise. He further submits that this Court in exercise of powers under Section under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned case in the interest of justice instead of relating the parties to the court below.
Mr. S. M. Nazir Abbas Abedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the settlement agreement dated 21.07.2017. He submits that once the parties have already compromised their dispute, no cause of action survives with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned case, which came into existence on the basis of the first information report lodged by the opposite party no.2 herself.
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.
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.
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 the Case No. 477 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 373 of 2011, (State Vs. Smt. Sualiha) under Section 406 I.P.C. P.S.-Delhi Gate, District- Meerut pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Meerut, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 YK