Naveen and 2 Others v. State of UP and Another

Court No. - 88 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36326 of 2018 Applicant :- Naveen And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anoop Kumar Sharma,Parvesh Kumar Pandey,Upendra Kumar Pushkar 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 to quash the charge sheet dated 05.06.2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 43 of 2018 in Case No. 40/4809 of 2018 (State Vs. Naveen and others), under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, 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 applicants, namely, Naveen, Jagswaroop and Smt. Shakuntala are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2. This is a matrimonial dispute between the applicant no. 1 and opposite party no.2. Marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized on 09.02.2014, but on account of acrimonious relation, their marriage was not successful, as a result thereof, opposite party no.2 lodged F.I.R. on 30.01.2018 against four accused persons including the applicants making allegation of her harassment and torture by the accused persons in her matrimonial home, in which charge sheet has been submitted against them on 05.06.2018, on which learned Magistrate took cognizance on

30.07.2018. Vide order dated 22.11.2018 of coordinate Bench of this Court, matter was referred to Mediation Centre, but mediation between the parties concerned had failed on 16.10.2019. Subsequently, parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and a settlement deed has been prepared on 29.03.2023. Thereafter, they have jointly preferred a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act on 29.03.2023, which is still pending. 4-On the strength of aforesaid facts it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants 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 filed a short counter afÏdavit mentioning inter alia 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 impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants shall be quashed. 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 want 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, impugned charge sheet dated

05.06.2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 43 of 2018 in Case No. 40/4809 of 2018 (State Vs. Naveen and others) 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 :- 22.11.2023 Kashifa High Court of Judicature at Allahabad