Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38157 of 2016 Applicant :- Surendra Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,U.C. Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. U.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 17.3.2016, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bijnor in Complaint Case No. 1501 of 2015 (Smt. Neeraj Vs. Arvind Kumar and Others), under Sections 406, IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor as well as the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.
This application came up for admission on 13.12.2016, and this Court passed the following order:-
"At the outset learned counsel for the applicants states that no criminal revision has been preferred against the summoning order before the concerned Sessions Judge.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the applicants submit that since it is a matrimonial dispute, an opportunity be granted to the parties for reconciliation / settlement of their dispute by way of mediation. Applicants are also willing to settle the matter through mediation.
I agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants.
The matter is referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court. The applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by way of demand draft / pay order in the name of Registrar General A/c, Allahabad High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre within a period of six weeks from today. After deposit of the aforesaid money, office shall send a notice to the opposite party no.2 fixing a date to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The aforesaid amount shall be payable to the opposite party no.2 on his/her appearance before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The Mediation Centre will submit its report in the matter within six weeks.
All the opposite parties may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this case on 3.4.2017 before the appropriate Bench alongwith the report of Mediation Centre.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings against the present applicants in complaint case no. 1501 of 2015 (Smt. Neeraj Vs. Arvind Kumar & others) under Sections 406 IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bijnor shall remain stayed.
If the amount, as directed above, is not deposited by the applicants within the aforesaid period, the stay order shall automatically come to an end and the office shall immediately list this case for further orders before the Court. "
Pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2016, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. The Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad has submitted its report dated 23.4.2017, stating therein that the parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad, but they are not willing for mediation. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court. During the pendency of the present application, it appears that the parties entered into a compromise outside the Court. The compromise so entered between the parties was reduced to writing and accordingly, a deed of compromise dated 14.9.2017 was prepared. As per the terms of aforesaid deed of compromise, it was agreed between the parties that the husband and the wife namely, Smt Neeraj and the husband Arvind Singh shall live separately. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been paid towards permanent alimony. Thirdly, the case filed against the husband and his family members shall be got decided on the basis of compromise and lastly, no party shall have any right to sue the other party for any dispute arising out of the matrimonial relationship. Pursuant to the aforesaid compromise, an application dated 10.5.2018 was filed in Case No. 1267 of 2017 (State Vs. Arvind and Others, under sections 323, 452, 498A, 504, 506 IPC. It was prayed by means of the aforesaid application that the above mentioned State case be decided in terms of the compromise so entered between the parties. From the perusal of the aforesaid application, it further transpires that on the basis of the compromise so entered between the parties, as explicit from the deed of compromise dated 14.9.2017, a suit for grant of decree of divorce in terms of section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, has already been filed.
Today, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has filed a supplementary affidavit in Court today, wherein, it has been stated that the amount of permanent alimony amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- has already been paid to the wife by the husband, which stand credited in the bank account of the opposite party No.2.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise outside the Court and have decided to terminate the proceedings pending against each other, on the basis of the compromise so entered, it is desirable that the proceedings of the complaint case giving rise to the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be quashed. He, further submits that this Court may itself quash the proceedings in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of relegating the parties to the Court below to do complete justice between them.
Mr. U.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, does not dispute the factum regarding the compromise so entered into between the parties. He submits that in view of the compromise so entered into between the parties, which is explicit from the deed of compromise dated 14.9.2017, whereby they have amicably resolved their dispute, no cause of action survives with the opposite party no.2 to pursue the above mentioned complaint case 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, 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. 1501 of 2015 (Smt. Neeraj Vs. Arvind Kumar and Others), under Sections 406, IPC, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Arshad