Allahabad High Court
Kuldeep Seth vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 January, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2502 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33751 of 2024 Applicant :- Kuldeep Seth Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Punit Kumar Gupta,Devendra Mishra,G.A.,Punit Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings including the impugned charge sheet dated 06.03.2022 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda in Case No.1960/IX/2022, (State versus Kuldeep Seth and others) arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, pending in the Court of learned First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda in pursuance of the compromise dated 27.10.2023 verified by the first Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda dated 13.08.2024.
4. Earlier application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.12505 of 2022 was filed by Kuldeep Seth and 3 others, wherein, the following order was passed on 26.05.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court :-
"Sri Pankaj Shukla, Advocate has already filed his power on behalf of opposite party no.2, but his name is not shown in the cause list.
Heard Sri Diwakar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pankaj Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
By way of present application, applicants made prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 06.03.2022, cognizance and summoning order dated 20.04.2022 and proceedings of Case No. 1960/IX/22 (State Vs. Kuldeep Seth and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant no.1 and applicant nos. 2 and 3 are her in-laws, while applicant no.4 is her brother-in-law (Jeth). He further submitted that totally on the basis of false allegation, opposite party no.2 lodged FIR of the present case against the applicant no.1, the husband and his family members. He further submitted that neither applicant no.1 nor rest of the applicants ever harassed her nor demanded any dowry from opposite party no.2 and without any proper investigation in routine manner the charge-sheet has been filed. He further submitted that as far as case of applicant nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, their case are distinguishable from the case of applicant no.1, the husband and there is no specific allegation against the applicant nos. 2 to 4 either in the FIR or in the statement of opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, at least indulgence of this Court is required in respect of applicants 2, 3 and 4.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that there is specific allegation of torture and demand of dowry against applicant no.1, the husband. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently submitted that when opposite party no.2 informed about the cruelty done by the applicant no.1 to applicant nos. 2 and 3, her in-laws, then applicants 2 and 3 also started taking favour of applicant no.1 and also started demand of dowry, therefore, perusal of the FIR and the statement of opposite party no.2 recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. discloses cognizable offence under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, therefore, application of applicants is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. Admittedly, applicants 2 and 3 are in-laws of opposite party no.2 and applicant no.4 is Jeth of opposite party no.2 and specific allegation in the FIR has been made only against applicant no.1, the husband and also in the statement of opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As, applicants 2 and 3 are in-laws of opposite party no.2 and applicant no.4 is Jeth, therefore, their case are distinguishable from the case of applicant no.1, the husband, therefore, in respect of applicants 2, 3 and 4, namely, Kripashankar Seth, Smt. Indu Seth and Deepak Seth, matter requires consideration.
Learned Government Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the State/opposite party no.1.
Sri Pankaj Shukla, Advocate has already appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. He prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by the applicant within two weeks thereafter.
List this case on 26.07.2022. When the case is listed next, the name of Sri Pankaj Shukla, Advocate be shown as counsel for the opposite party no.2.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants 2, 3 and 4, namely, Kripashankar Seth, Smt. Indu Seth and Deepak Seth.
As far as, the case of applicant no.1, namely, Kuldeep Seth, the husband of opposite party no.2, is concerned, there is specific allegation of cruelty and harassment to opposite party no.2, therefore, application of applicant no.1, namely Kuldeep Seth is rejected."
5. Subsequently, during pendency of the aforesaid application, the parties have entered into compromise, therefore, on 29.07.2024, the following order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court :-
"1. Heard Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vishal Mohan Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Ajay Singh-I, learned counsel for State.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the parties have entered into compromise, copy of which is annexed as annexure no. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is argued that as such the present proceedings be quashed.
4. Looking to the facts of the case, it is provided that the applicants shall file the said compromise within a period of two weeks from today before the court concerned who shall verify the same within two weeks thereafter and send his report to this Court.
5. List on 09.09.2024.
6. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, namely, Kuldeep Seth, Kripashankar Seth, Smt. Indu Seth and Deepak Seth in Case No. 1960/IX/22 (State vs. Kuldseep Seth and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.
7. Learned counsels for the parties are also at liberty to file the order of compromise through an affidavit in the present matter. "
6. The parties including the applicant-Kuldeep Seth appeared before the Court concerned for verification of the compromise. As the case of husband was rejected by earlier order of this Court but in the light of the compromise dated 17.09.2024 proceedings against Kripa Shanker Seth, Indu Seth and Deepak Seth were quashed in the light of the compromise which was verified in compliance of the order of this Court.
7. The present application has been filed with respect to Kuldeep Seth which can be taken as second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. under change circumstances. This Court finds while verifying the compromise Kuldeep Seth had appeared before the Court concerned and in presence of all the parties compromise has been verified by order dated 13.08.2024, certified copy of the order has been annexed on page no.7 of the supplementary affidavit filed today.
8. In the interest of justice, it would not be appropriate to linger the matter and sent the matter for verification of the compromise again. As applicant has already appeared before the Court concerned while the compromise was being verified in compliance of earlier order of this Court.
9. Sri Devendra Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts and admits that compromise between the parties has been verified.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
11. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
12. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
(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,
13. 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 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
14. 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.
15. Accordingly, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.44955 of 2020 (State Vs. Veerpal Bhati and others), arising out of Criminal Case No.1960/IX/2022, (State versus Kuldeep Seth and others) arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, pending in the Court of learned First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda in pursuance of the compromise are hereby quashed.
16. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 6.1.2025 I.A.Siddiqui