Allahabad High Court
Bhagwati Prasad And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 March, 2021
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4408 of 2021
Applicant :- Bhagwati Prasad And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Fakhruzzaman
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no. 1 and Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate, who has entered appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 362 of 2017, Smt. Anita and another v. Bhagwati Prasad and others, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.)/ J.M. Court, Lalitpur.
It is submitted that the applicant no.1 is husband, applicant no.2 is father-in-law, applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law, applicant no. 4 is brother-in-law and applicant no. 5 is Jethani of opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case had been lodged against the applicant no. 1 and his family members but neither there was any criminal intent on the part of any party nor any criminal offence had actually occurred.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-
(i) the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties;
(ii) the complaint case was filed by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;
(iii) there never was any criminal intent on the part of the applicants nor any offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos;
(v) therefore, in the changed circumstance, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
It is also stated that compromise deed dated 21.01.2019 had been filed by the parties before the learned court below. Copy of the compromise is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit in support of the present application. It further appears that the learned court below has verified the aforesaid compromise vide order dated 30.09.2019.
In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed, it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto estranged couple and their families.
Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.
In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being matrimonial discord that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their entire satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.
Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.
The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 19.3.2021
SKT/-
