Court No. - 44
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 841 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Yogita Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Das holding brief of Mr. Hemant Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner who has filed his Vakalatnama in Court today, the learned A.G.A. for the state and Mr. Muktesh Singh holding brief of Mr. Dileep Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. Albel Singh Yadav in connected matters.
This petition has been filed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 5.12.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi, in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2015 (Smt. Yogita Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Jhansi, in Criminal Case No. 2936 of 2014 (Smt. Yogita Yadav Vs. Dr. Albel Singh Yadav and others), under sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Jhansi and also for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Court below to pass fresh order on the appeal of the petitioner.
The present application came up for admission on 15.02.2016 and this Court passed the following order:-
"Issue notice to respondent nos. 2 to 5 returnable within six weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
List after six weeks."
During the pendency of the present petition, a suit for divorce being suit No.481/2016 (Dr.Albel Singh vs. Smt. Yogita Yadav) was filed in the Competent Court at Jhansi in terms of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the aforesaid divorce suit, a compromise apllication was filed wherein the parties agreed to terminate the matrimonial relationship by filing a suit under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as upon payment of Rs. 40,00000/-(Rs.Forty Lakhs only) as permanent alimony by the husband to the wife.
Consequently, suit No.662 of 2017 (Dr. Albel Singh vs. Smt. Yogita Yadav) was filed before the Family Court, Jhansi in terms of Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Pursuant to the aforesaid compromise, the Court ceased of the divorce suit No.481 of 2016 passed the order dated 21.09.2017 whereby the said suit was decreed in terms of the compromise and the deed of compromise was also made the part of the decree.
This suit under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is said to be pending. However, in terms of compromise so entered between the parties and was filed in case No.481 of 2016, the opposite party No.2 Albel Singh Yadav has paid a sum of Rs.40,0000/- (Rs. Forty Lakhs only) to the petitioner by means of a bank draft dated 01.02.2018. Therefore, now it is only the consequential action which remains to be taken by the Court where the suit under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is said to be pending. On the basis of the facts as stated above a joint affidavit has been filed in the connected Criminal Misc. Application No. 45008 of 2013, praying therein that since the parties have already entered into compromise, which is on the record as Annexure-1 to the said joint affidavit and pursuant thereto a suit for divorce by mutual consent as contemplated under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed followed by the payment of Rs.40,0000/- (Rs. Forty Lakhs only) towards permanent alimony by the opposite party No.2 to the applicant No.1. It is urged that the proceedings of the present case No. 119 of 2012 giving rise to the present petition be decided as clause (3) of the compromise clearly provides that the cases filed by the parties against each other shall be got terminated.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of the above mentioned State case. He therefore, submits that since the parties have already entered into a compromise settlement whereby they have dissolved their disputes and the said compromise has also been acted upon as is evident from the facts as quoted herein above. No useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings in the above mentioned case. He further submits that this Court should consider to do complete justice between the parties instead of relegating them to the Court below.
Mr. Muktesh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dileep Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 does not dispute the fact as noted herein above and as also the filing of the compromise application in the connected aforementioned application under section 482 Cr. P. C.. According to the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 cannot have any further cause of action to pursue the above mentioned case in view of the joint affidavit filed before this Court in the connected aforementioned application under section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking disposal of the case in terms of the compromise so entered between the parties.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
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 order dated 5.12.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi, in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2015 (Smt. Yogita Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Jhansi, in Criminal Case No. 2936 of 2014 (Smt. Yogita Yadav Vs. Dr. Albel Singh Yadav and others), under sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Jhansi pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, are hereby set aside.
The petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.8.2018 cks