Devendra Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 88 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35002 of 2023 Applicant :- Devendra Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Shukla 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 proceedings of S.T. No. 2682 of 2020 (State vs. Ranveeri & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 713 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras, pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Agra on the basis of compromise entered between the parties concerned. 3-It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no. 1 is husband, applicant no. 2 is mother-in-law, applicant no. 3 is father-in-law and applicant no. 4 is sister-in-law of the daughter of opposite party no. 2, respectively. The marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized on

12.02.2011 with the daughter of opposite party no. 2, but their marriage was not successful, as such, the opposite party no. 2 lodged the impugned FIR on

02.08.2017 under Sections 498-A, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants in which charge-sheet was submitted on

20.12.2017 on which the concerned Magistrate took cognizance on 09.02.2018. Thereafter, the parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and daughter of the opposite party no. 2 started living with her husband (applicant no. 1) in her matrimonial home and from their wedlock, she gave birth to a female child. Vide order of this Court dated 14.07.2023, 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 02.08.2023 mentioning therein that the parties have made compromise in the matter. The said order dated 02.08.2023 has been brought on record as Annexure No. 5 to this 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 in quashing 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, the entire proceedings of aforesaid case 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 :- 7.12.2023 Saurabh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad