HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 30392 of 2019
Applicant :- Siddharth And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit dated 05.08.2019 filed on behalf of the applicants, is taken on record.
Sri K.K.Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama and counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is also taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State/opposite party no.1 and Sri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash entire proceeding of Case No.1015 of 2017 (SectionState vs. Siddharth others) arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2016, under Sections 498A, Section506 IPC and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Quila, District -Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Bareilly.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 Siddharth is husband, applicant no.2 Chandrabhan Mishra is father-in-law and applicant no.3 Manju Mishra is mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 Shilpi Sharma. Marriage of the applicant no.1 with opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 13.11.2013, but their marriage was not successful. As a result thereof the opposite party no.2 lodged F.I.R. dated 27.02.2016 under Sectionsections 498A, Section506 I.P.C. 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act against the applicants and two other co-accused in which chargesheet was submitted on 08.05.2016 only against the applicants on which the magistrate took cognizance on 09.06.2016. The said chargesheet was challenged by the applicants in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.No.22355 of 2016, but the said prayer of the applicants was refused and application was disposed of by order dated 27.07.2016 directing the applicants to appear before the court below and apply for bail. It is submitted that thereafter the parties have entered into compromise outside the Court and compromise deed has been executed between the parties concerned on 11.07.2019. The said compromise deed has brought on record as Annexure No.4 to the application.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in paragraph nos.3 and 4 of her counter affidavit has also mentioned about the compromise made between the parties concerned.
Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. Applicants are permitted to file compromise application before the concerned court below within two weeks.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 6.8.2019
SKD
