Nishit Palo and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 88 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35293 of 2023 Applicant :- Nishit Palo And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Dhananjay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shivesh Mishra Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party No.1, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record. 2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 05.08.2020 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 14127 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Nishit Palo and Another) arising out of case crime no. 39 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-1st (Crime Against Women) Ghaziabad on the basis of compromise between the parties concerned. 3-Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this case as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 namely Nishit Palo and Krishna Chandra Palo are husband and father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2-Smt. Dr. Swati Sharma respectively. This is a matrimonial dispute between the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no.2. Marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized on

25.07.2015 with the opposite party no. 2, but on account of matrimonial dispute between them, opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report dated 19.02.2019 against the applicants, in which charge sheet has been submitted against them on

14.06.2020, on which Magistrate concerned took cognizance. Thereafter, parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise deed dated 21.11.2022 has been moved before the concerned court below. Vide order of this Court dated 25.07.2023, the concerned court below was directed to verify the compromise application filed by the parties concerned, which has been verified by the trial court by order dated 01.09.2023 mentioning that the parties concerned have made compromise in the matter, a copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 7 to the afÏdavit. 4-On the strength of aforesaid facts it is submitted that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, therefore, aforesaid criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court. 5-Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants and has no objection if the Court quashes the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants. 6-After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that after settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned wants to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in a matrimonial dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of conviction gets lost. 7-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 1 SCC

(Cri) 848 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296, this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the ends of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties are brought to an end. 8-In view of the above, summoning order dated

05.08.2020 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 14127 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Nishit Palo and Another) against the applicants are hereby quashed. 9-In the conspectus of the aforesaid, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above. Order Date :- 30.10.2023 Saurabh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad