HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 44463 of 2019
Applicant :- Akash @ Joly
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyam Narayan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anish Kumar Singh
Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by the State and opposite party. Taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Satyam Narayan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Devendra Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
3. The present 482 SectionCr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings as well as summoning order dated 14.08.2018 in Case No. 407 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.267 of 2015 (Smt. Rinu Vs Akash @ Joly Others), under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 SectionI.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Hastinapur, District- Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Meerut.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case had been lodged against the applicant but that neither there was any criminal intent on part of any party nor any criminal offence had actually occurred.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an earlier application filed under Section 482 by the present applicant was disposed of with a direction to require him to file discharge. At present, during pendency of the proceedings, the applicant and the opposite party no.2, who are husband and wife have resolved their differences amicably. It has been further submitted that:
(i) though the 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 some 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/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos;
(v) the parties have decided to dissolve their marriage. In this regard, a petition for dissolution of the marriage between the parties has been filed at before Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut being Petition No. 419 of 2019.
(vi) further, the applicant has agreed to pay to opposite party no. 2, Rs.6,00,000 towards full and final settlement of all her money claim against that applicant for alimony or otherwise.
(vii) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicant.
6. 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 bitterly estranged couple and their families;
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. In fact, paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit read as under :
“5. That in reply of the contents of paragraphs no.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the affidavit, it is stated that in consequence of said compromise be parties has filed divorce petition under Section 13-B, SectionHindu Marriage Act. From perusal of paragraph no.9 of the aforesaid divorce petition No.419/2019, it is evident that the husband agreed to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the wife as permanent alimony, therefore, the wife has not objection on the compromise dated 23.09.2019. A certified copy of the Divorce Petition No.419/2019 alongwith affidavit of the answering opposite party no.2 dated 07.03.2019 are being filed herewith and collectively marked as Annexure no. CA-1 to this affidavit.”
8. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being a matrimonial dispute that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing such a prosecution to proceed any further.
9. 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.
10. The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019