SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Babu Ram And Another vs State Of Up And Another on 17 July, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 25717 of 2019

Applicant :- Babu Ram And Another

Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Mishra Gana

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jay Singh Yadav

Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 159 of 2015 arising out of case crime no. 0291 of 2013, under Sections 498A, Section495, Section323, Section504, Section506, Section109 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, District Bareilly.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 is husband and applicant no.2 is father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 (wife of applicant no.1). The marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 13.6.2012. Thereafter, on account of acrimonious relations, a matrimonial dispute arose between the parties concerned and opposite party no.2 lodged impugned FIR on 12.11.2013 against the applicants and five other accused persons, but after investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet dated 7.9.2014 against the applicants only, on which, the Magistrate concerned took cognizance on 23.3.2015. It is further submitted that after submission of the charge-sheet in this case, the parties have entered into compromise and settlement took place between them. Under the circumstances, the parties concerned moved a compromise application dated 2.5.2019 before the Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly and a separate application dated 2.5.2019 was also moved with a prayer to drop the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants pursuant to compromise dated 2.5.2019, appended as Annexure No.3 to the application. It is submitted that the aforesaid compromise application dated 2.5.2019 of the applicants and opposite party no.2 has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 3.5.2019 on the ground that the offences for which, the applicants are facing trial are non-compoundable, therefore, they cannot be permitted to make compromise.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2. In paragraph nos. 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit, the opposite party no.2 has also stated that with the consent of the parties, the matter has been settled between them.

Learned counsel for the parties are present.The counsel for the informant has stated at the Bar that on account of settlement/compromise made between the parties concerned, now the informant does not want to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicants and has no objection in case impugned criminal proceeding is quashed against the applicants by this Court.

Keeping in mind the sage advice of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675 to Courts to encourage settlement of marital disputes between contesting spouses so that they do not lose their youthful years in chasing interminable litigations and reiterating the following lines from paragraph 10 of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, I think the interests of justice would be met if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end. The lines read:

“SectionIn State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in ‘negative’. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.”

On making settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.

Thus, in view of above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is liable to be allowed in terms of aforesaid settlement/compromise made between the parties keeping in view of well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (supra).

Consequently, the proceedings of Case No. 159 of 2015 arising out of case crime no. 0291 of 2013, under Sections 498A, Section495, Section323, Section504, Section506, Section109 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, District Bareilly is hereby quashed.

The present application u/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. is allowed in terms of settlement/compromise made between the parties concerned.

Order Date :- 17.7.2019

AK Pandey

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation