Allahabad High Court
Sachin And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17970 of 2019
Applicant :- Sachin And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
The joint affidavit has been filed on behalf of the parties in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
Heard Mr. Rishabh Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
On 03.05.2019, the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 03.10.2018 alongwith cognizance order dated 27.10.2018 passed by court below in Case No. 110 of 2018, State Vs. Sachin and others as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 110 of 2018, State Vs. Sachin and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 27 of 2018, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hathras pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the husband as well as entire family members of the husband-applicant no. 1 have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no.2 on the general allegations, which is against the well settled principles of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
So far as the husband-applicant no. 1 namely, Sachin, 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders 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 of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever 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, this application is finally disposed off so far as applicant no. 1 is concerned.
So far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 namely Father-in-law and Mother-in-law, are concerned the following orders is being passed:-
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The opposite party no. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the said period. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants two week thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 in the aforesaid case. "
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during pendency of the present case, the parties have amicably settled the dispute and have entered into compromise. They have filed a suit for mutual divorce, which has been decreed by order dated 08.05.2022. The joint affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the parties placing the compromise deed. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law.
Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the parties may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file a proper compromise deed. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?
The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.
Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
Rahul.
