Allahabad High Court
Tarun Kumar Matreja And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3961 of 2023
Applicant :- Tarun Kumar Matreja And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record. Office to register it.
Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Patil, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 09.11.2019 including cognizance order dated 21.01.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1486 of 2020, 'State v. Tarun Matreja and others', arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kakadev, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of M.M.-IInd, Kanpur Nagar.
Earlier, on 08.07.2022, this Court disposing of Application U/s 482 No. 13269 of 2022 (Tarun Kumar Matreja and others v. State of U.P. and another), passed the following order:
"Heard Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge sheet dated 09.11.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 21.01.2020 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1486 of 2020 (State Vs. Tarun Matreja and others), arising out of Case Crime No.280 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kakadev, District-Kanpr Nagar, pending in the Court of M.M.-II, Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that entire amount mentioned in the compromise deed has been paid to the wife. He further submits that dispute between the parties is matrimonial and parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the application wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no.2 does not want to press the case. 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 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 applicants 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 above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. It is expected that Court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the 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 the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned 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 applicants in the aforesaid case.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the court concerned has verified the compromise by order dated 15.7.2022 in the presence of parties along with their respective counsel. Certified copy of the aforesaid order has been brought on record as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit, filed today.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675;
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677;
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1;
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303; and
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that 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. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 1486 of 2020, 'State v. Tarun Matreja and others', arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kakadev, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of M.M.-IInd, Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
DS
