Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32037 of 2018 Applicant :- Vikas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and; learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 12.7.2017 as well as further proceedings in Case No. 2551/9 of 2017 (State Vs. Vikas and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 327 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station Kandhla, District Shamli, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kairana, District Shamli.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that:-
(i) the only dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties;
(ii) the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;
(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) certain physical injuries had been wrongly claimed by the opposite party no. 2, out of emotional hurt caused and not on account of any physical hurt or injury, as alleged Hence, that allegation may also not stand in the way of the applicant in seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution.
(v) at present, the parties have resolved their differences such that the parties are living together in matrimony and at present there does not survive any dispute or difference between them;
(vi) therefore, in the changed circumstance, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicant.
In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto estranged couple and their families;
5. Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. In fact, paragraph nos. 4 to 6 of the short counter affidavit reads as under :
"4. That during the pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties settled their dispute outside the court and intended to get the aforesaid case pending between them quashed/withdrawn.
5. That it is submitted that the matrimonial dispute between the applicant and opposite party no.2 has now been resolved amicably and the opposite party no.2 started residing in her matrimonial home with the applicant and is leading a happy married life without any complaint and a joint notary affidavit has been sworn by the applicant and opposite party no.2 to the aforesaid effect, which has been annexed with the above mentioned Criminal Miscellaneous Application (U/s 482 CrPC).
6. That it is reiterated that the parties have now settled their dispute and intending to withdraw the aforesaid case pending between them and as such the continuation of the present proceedings are of no use and may kindly be decided as such."
6. Thus, in view of the well settled principles 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 Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
7. The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Mini