Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P.And Another on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12148 of 2019
Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Bahadur Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandrahas Singh Gautam
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Kunwar Bahadur Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri C.H.Singh Gautam, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 14.07.2015 and proceedings of Case no.1219 of 2015 (Smt.Ritika vs. Pradeep Kumar Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.9 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District -Jhansi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, District Jhansi.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case opposite party no.2 has lodged FIR on 26.03.2013 registered as Case Crime No.9 of 2013, under section 498A, 328, 323, 504, 506, 323, 452 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Jhansi against six accused persons.
After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted only against Pradeep Kumar Singh (husband), Smt.Puspa Singh (mother-in-law) and Omveer Singh (father-in-law). So far as criminal proceedings against Smt.Puspa Singh and Omveer Singh pursuant to charge-sheet dated 14.07.2015 are concerned, the same has been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.01.2016 in Application u/s 482 No.26720 of 2015.
It is submitted that during pendency of this application before this Court filed by the applicant Pradeep Kumar Singh (husband), a settlement took place between the parties concerned and on the basis of mutual settlement, a decree of divorce has been passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Mathura vide order dated 20.12.2018, as such, marriage between the applicant and opposite party no.2 has been dissolved. The said order dated 20.12.2018 has been appended as Annexure 8 to the application.
It has further been pointed by the learned counsel for the applicant that after passing the decree of divorce, the appeals preferred by the parties concerned with regard to dispute under Domestic Violence Act has also been dismissed on 12.09.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2017.
On behalf of opposite party no.2 (wife), counter affidavit dated 02.07.2019 has been filed, which is on record. In paragraph No.10, an averment has been made that since the issue, if any, between the parties to the marriage have now amicably being dissolved by way of compromise, therefore, she has no objection if the present application is allowed and the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicant is quashed by this Court.
The counsel for the complainant has stated at the Bar that on account of settlement/compromise made between the parties concerned, now the complainant does not want to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicant and has no objection in case impugned criminal proceeding is quashed against the applicant by this Court.
Keeping in mind the sage advice of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675 to Courts to encourage settlement of marital disputes between contesting spouses so that they do not lose their youthful years in chasing interminable litigations and reiterating the following lines from paragraph 10 of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, I think the interests of justice would be met if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end. The lines read:
"In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in 'negative'. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides."
Considering the observation and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment, I think the interest of justice could be met, if aforesaid prayer of the parties concerned is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigations between the parties is brought to an end. On making settlement/compromise between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.
Thus, in view of above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is liable to be allowed.
Consequently, the chargesheet dated 14.07.2015 and further proceedings of Case No.1219 of 2015 (Smt.Ritika vs. Pradeep Kumar Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.9 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District -Jhansi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, District Jhansi, is hereby quashed.
In view of above, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019/SKD
