Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9822 of 2011 Applicant :- Udaiveer Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Shandilya,Sudamaji Shandilya,Vivek Shandilya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 10.01.2011 passed by C.J.M., Jalaun at Orai in Case No. 2208 of 2007, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, Orai, District Jalaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier one FIR dated 22.04.2007 has been lodged against the applicants, which was registered as case crime no. 562 of 2007, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. He further submits that apart from FIR, opposite party no. 2 has initiated criminal proceeding on 11.11.2010 against applicant no. 2 under section 125 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Orai. He further submits that applicant no. 2 has also filed Matrimonial Petition No. 24 of 2007, under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce against opposite party no. 2.
He submits that during the pendency of criminal proceeding, parties have entered into compromise and on the basis of compromise between the parties, proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. was dropped by the court below vide order dated 11.11.2010. Thereafter, on the basis of compromise, divorce petition filed under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act was also decreed by court below vide judgement and decree dated 12.11.2010.
He further submits that a joint application has also been filed on 10.11.2010 along with affidavit mentioning therein that parties have entered into compromise and opposite party no. 2 does not want to prosecute applicants, but the said application was rejected by C.J.M., Jalaun at Orai vide order dated 10.01.2011 on the ground that he had no power to quash the proceedings of the case and High Court has power to quash the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. and under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
He submits that earlier vide order of this Court dated 29.3.2011, matter was referred to Mediation Centre, but opposite party no. 2 did not turn up to participate in the mediation and the same was failed as per report dated 3.11.2011. He further submits that after divorce, opposite party no. 2 has solemnized her second marriage with another person belonging to Village Nari, P.S. Ait, District Jalaun in the year 2012 and out of their wedlock, a female child has also been born and as such opposite party no. 2 has no interest in the present case and did not appear before this Court. He lastly submits that under such facts and circumstances of the case, Court may please to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the applicants.
Learned AGA could not dispute the said fact.
I have carefully perused the record. Factually, it is correct that the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as divorce decree was concluded on the basis of compromise and the application for quashing of the proceeding before the court below was rejected only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court below. Apart from the fact that opposite party no. 2 has solemnized her second marriage and living happily, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the matter pending, therefore, order dated 10.01.2011 passed by C.J.M., Jalaun at Orai is liable to be quashed in light of compromise between the parties.
Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi) Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the judgement of the Apex Court reported in J.T. 2008 SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another) as well as Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and reported in 2014 Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another), the order dated 10.01.2011 passed by C.J.M., Jalaun at Orai as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
The present application is, accordingly, allowed.
Let a copy of the order be sent to court below for information and necessary action.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Arvind