HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 33122 of 2019
Applicant :- Bharat Gautam And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mumtaz Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 29.06.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Azamgarh and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6973 of 2016 (Ram Harsh Vs. Bharat Gautam and others), under Section 498A I.P.C. Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Azamgarh.
In the present case a compromise has already taken place between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Report has also been sent by the Mediation Centre along with settlement agreement dated 31.01.2020, which is quoted as under:
“7) The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:
a) That the parties have settled their dispute and decided take mutually divorce and in this regard they have filed a petition u/s 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the SH Deepak Garg, Judge, Family Court, North West, Rohini, Delhi which is registered as Petition No. 83 of 2020. The certified copy of aforesaid divorce petition is being annexed to this settlement-agreement for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.
b) That the parties have settled their dispute on the condition that the applicant-husband shall pay a permanent alimony including Stridhan of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the wife Rita Kumar.
c) That the applicant no. 1 has already been paid for Rs. 2,50,000/- to the wife namely at the time of statement of first motion in divorce petition.
d) That the demand draft bearing no. 810074 dated 13.01.2020 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India in favour of wife namely Rita Kumar and which has been handed over to the wife on i.e. 14.01.2020 by the applicant-husband and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same. The aforesaid fact mentioned in para 5 of the decree.
e) That another demand draft bearing no. 810111 dated 30.01.2020 for Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India in favour of wife namely Rita Kumar and which has been handed over to the wife today i.e. 31.01.2020 by the applicant-husband and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
f) That it has been agreed between the parties that the all criminal and civil cases filed by them against each other shall be withdrawn/get quashed by them by taking appropriate steps before the Court/Authorities concerned in view of this settlement-agreement.
g) That thereafter parties have no further claim against each other in any manner whatsoever regarding present matrimonial dispute.
h) That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement, otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal course. ”
Learned counsel for the informant states that since the informant, namely, Ram Harsh has expired during the pendency of this case, therefore, the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which is lying before the Registrar, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, may be handed over to the victim, namley, Reeta Kumar and is being represented by Mr. Gaurav Tiwari. The victim, Reeta Kumar may be identified by her counsel Mr. Gaurav Tiwari.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
(i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675;
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1;
(iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;
(v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;
In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the 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 expatiated in detail.
From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, has declared his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 6973 of 2016 (Ram Harsh Vs. Bharat Gautam and others), under Section 498A I.P.C. Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 21, Azamgarh.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 6.3.2020