Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16697 of 2020
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Girja Shanker Sen
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Girja Shanker Sen, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.185 of 2013 dated 08.08.2013 and cognizance order dated 20.08.2013 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 131 of 2013 (State vs. Sunil Kumar and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.8, Ghaziabad.
On the matter being taken up, on 17.11.2020 the Court passed following order:-
"1. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief Mr. Girija Shankar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 states that he has been filed his vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit in the Registry today itself after serving copy of the same to the learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.185 of 2013 dated 08.08.2013 (State vs. Sunil Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District- Ghaziabad and cognizance order dated 20.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.8, Ghaziabad.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. In the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. regarding maintenance, a compromise has been entered into between the parties, therefore, after ensuring the presence of both the parties, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Baghpat vide order dated 22.12.2018 has quashed the proceedings on the terms and conditions as agreed between the parties. Subsequently, for the present proceedings, an application dated 04.04.2019 was moved by the opposite party no.2 before the concerned court below mentioning therein that she does not want to pursue the matter against the applicants and all disputes between them have come to an end, therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed. However, the concerned court below has passed the order on the application itself, which is at page 42 of this application stating that since the offences are non-compoundable, therefore, he does not have jurisdiction to pass order on the application of opposite party no.2. It has further been submitted that since the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, therefore, the entire criminal proceedings may liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. In the short counter affidavit filed today, it has been stated that the parties have entered into compromise.
6. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and they shall be permitted to file an joint application for verification of the compromise, wherein they have settled their all the disputes pending each other. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.
7. Put up on 20th January, 2021 as fresh.
8. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
9. When the case is next listed, name of Mr. Girija Shankar Sharma shall be shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party no.2."
Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 17.11.2020, the compromise deed was filed by the parties before the concerned court below and the said compromise deed has been verified by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.3, Ghaziabad vide order 24.12.2020 after ensuing presence of the parties, copy of the order dated 24.12.2020 as well as compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure No.S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, the opposite party no.2 has no grievance and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:
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. & 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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 131 of 2013 (State vs. Sunil Kumar and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.8, Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 JK Yadav