Allahabad High Court
Shivam Rathi And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20417 of 2019
Applicant :- Shivam Rathi And 7 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jagdish Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet dated 11.04.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 18 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 376, 326B, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District - Muzaffar Nagar along with impugned cognizance order dated 18.04.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1993/9 of 2019, (State vs. Shivam Rathi and others), pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar.
On 23.05.2019, following order was passed :
"Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 it is taken on record.
Heard Sri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to stay/quash the impugned charge sheet dated 11.4.2019 submitted in case crime No. 18/2019 under sections 498A, 323, 376, 326B, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Muzaffarnagar along with the impugned cognizance order dated 18.4.2019 passed by the C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar as well as entire proceedings of Crl. Case No. 1993 of 2019 (State v. Shivam Rathi and others) under sections 498A, 323, 326B, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, district- Muzaffarnagar. pending in the court of CJM, Muzaffarnagar.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submit that there are good chances of mediation between the parties and if one opportunity is given, there is every likelihood that the matrimonial dispute may be resolved resulting in closure/ compounding of the proceedings.
Having considered the arguments advanced across the Bar, I have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may e healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those case in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the matter is referred to the Mediation Centre with the direction that same may be tried to be resolved after giving notices to both the parties. I hereby direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- within two weeks from today with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court of which 90% shall be paid to the opposite party no. 2 on the very first day for appearance before the Mediation Centre.
It is directed that Mediation Centre shall decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three month. Thereafter, the case shall be listed before appropriate Bench on 11th October, 2019.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings against the applicants no. 1, and 3 to 8, in the aforesaid case shall be kept in abeyance.
After depositing the amount, aforesaid, notice shall be issued to the parties and in case the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted above shall automatically be vacated.
So far as the applicant no. 2, namely Gautam Rathi, is concerned following orders is being passed:-
"From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the court below is refused.
However, it is provided that if applicant no. 2, namely Gautam Rathi, appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail which ever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, so far as applicant no. 2, namely Gautam Rathi, is concerned application is finally disposed off."
In compliance of the order dated 23.05.2019, parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and have entered into a settlement agreement dated 24.02.2020 on the following terms and conditions:
"7. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-
a) That Sri Shivam Rathi (Applicant No. 1-Husband) and Smt. Swati @ Sweety (O.P. No. 2-Wife) have already decided to reunite and live together as husband and wife in perfect harmony forgetting all previous disputes and differences.
b) That after living together, the parties appeared before the Centre and stated to the mediators that they are satisfied with this reunion and further they want to continue it for the rest of their lives.
c) That they undertake to discharge all matrimonial obligations towards each other in respectful manner and not to commit any kind of cruelty against each other in any manner whatsoever.
d) That the husband and wife undertake that they shall not take any such action which may hurt either of the party mentally or physically and shall try to satisfy each other by their activities.
e) That the husband undertakes to take care of his wife and daughter and provide all essential requirements and amenities to them in future.
f) That it has been agreed between the parties that the parents of the o.p. no. 2 will not go in the house of applicant no. 1, but o.p. no. 2 herself will go to her parental house at any time whatsoever.
g) That it has also been agreed between the parties that all the cases filed by them against each other along-with matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned.
h) That it has also been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement, otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse."
In view of the settlement agreement before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, parties have amicably settled their dispute.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
(i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675;
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1;
(iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;
(v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;
In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.
Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been expatiated in detail.
From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. In such circumstances, it is apparent that merits and truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if allowed to continue, may largely be a waste of precious time by the learned court below.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case regarding the compromise entered into between the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1993/9 of 2019, (State vs. Shivam Rathi and others), Case Crime No. 18 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 376, 326B, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District - Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, is hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.2.2021
Priya
