Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11587 of 2004 Applicant :- Vinod Kumar And Others.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
Heard Shri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. Although as per office report dated 7.4.2005, notice has been served upon opposite party No. 2, but none appears on her behalf.
By means of this application the applicants have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case No. 7021 of 2003, under Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Vijay Nagar, district Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad.
The brief facts of the case are that marriage of applicant No. 1, Vinod Kumar was solemnized with opposite party No. 2, Smt. Hemlata as per Hindu rites on 23.6.1999. Soon after the marriage, as the relations between husband and wife were not cordial, they indulged into several round of litigation. Perusal of the record shows that on 17.7.2000, opposite party-wife lodged an FIR against husband at case crime No. 290 of 2000, under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in which after investigation charge sheet has been submitted and thereafter husband Vinod Kumar was arrested and sent to jail. Thereafter on 8.8.2000, wife-opposite party No. 2, with the same allegation filed a complaint case No. 1697 of 2000, under Section 406 IPC, on which ACJM, Ghaziabad summoned the applicants to face the trial. In addition to the aforesaid proceedings, opposite party No. 2 also moved a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the same allegations, which were made in the complaint case No. 1697 of 2000, Opposite party No. 2 again filed a complaint case No. 7021 of 2003, under section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act on which learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad summoned the applicant vide order dated 08.9.2004, which is impugned in this application.
When this application was filed, this Court vide order dated 1.11.2004 stayed further proceedings of complaint case No. 7021 of 2003, under Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Vijay Nagar, district Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants brought to the notice of the court that complaint case No. 1697 of 2000, in which the applicants were summoned, on the basis of compromise, the proceedings have been quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.8.2015 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7419 of 2003 (Vinod Kumar and others Vs. State of UP and others).
Learned counsel for the applicants further brought to the notice of the Court that Charge sheet dated 10.8.2000 as well as proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5448 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No.
290 of 2000, under sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Vijay Nagar, district Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad have also been quashed by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 27.3.2018 in Criminal Misc. Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4740 of 2009.
Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of Criminal Misc. Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4740 of 2009, parties have entered into a compromise before the lower court, consequently marriage was dissolved and proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also dropped.
The main thrust of contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that as the matter is amicably settled, the proceedings pending in the lower court be quashed in the light of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2003 (4) SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303.
Learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the aforesaid position.
In view of the fact, that the parties have entered into a compromise before the lower court, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this application pending before this Court.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of complaint case No. 7021 of 2003, under Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Vijay Nagar, district Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad is quashed.
The application is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2018 Ishrat