Allahabad High Court
Naveen Kumar Gupta And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 49 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12721 of 2020 Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Gupta And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Anand Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash charge sheet dated 24.05.2018 as well as the entire proceedings on the basis of compromise dated 07.12.2019 and an order dated 24.02.2020 of Criminal Case No. 3471 of 2018 (State vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2018, under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Prem Nagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party no.2 and there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The FIR came to be lodged 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. There never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. At present, the parties have resolved their differences and made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicants has pointed that initially an Application 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40727 of 2019 was filed in which challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3471 of 2018 and the order dated 14.11.2019 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby upon being informed about the factum of inter-se compromise in between the parties concerned, the concerned court below was directed to verify the factum of compromise between the parties concerned. The said order dated 14.11.2019 is being reproduced herein-below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the chargesheet dated 24.05.2018 arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2018 and proceedings of Criminal Case no.3471 of 2018 (State Vs.Naveen Kumar Gupta and others), under Section 498-A I.P.C. & Section Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, District-Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Bareilly.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 Naveen Kumar Gupta is husband, applicant no.2 Suresh Chandra Gupta is father-in-law, applicant no.3 Smt.Sunit Gupta is mother-in-law and applicant no.4 Saroj Gupta is aunt of opposite party no.2 Smt.Ankshita Goyal. Marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized on 05.12.2013 with the opposite party no.2, but their marriage was not successful, as a result thereof, on account of acrimonious relation, opposite party no.2 lodged impugned FIR on 08.03.2018 against the applicants making allegation of harassment and torture in her matrimonial home, in which chargesheet was submitted on 24.05.2018 on which cognizance was taken on 03.10.2018 by the magistrate concerned. Thereafter parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the court and pursuant to said settlement, applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 jointly filed divorce petition No.1814 of 2018 under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bareilly, which is still pending. It is also pointed out that after compromise between the parties concerned, Case No.1573 of 2017, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been decided by order dated 13.07.2019.
It is submitted that no compromise application has yet been filed before the concerned court below, where criminal proceeding is pending against the applicants and requested to allow the applicants to move compromise application before the concerned court below.
Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, as such said compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.
On the request made by learned counsel for the applicants three weeks time is allowed to the applicants to file compromise application before the concerned court below.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case such compromise application is filed by the applicants before it within aforesaid period, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. 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 applicant 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."
Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 14.11.2019, the concerned Magistrate has passed the order dated 24.02.2020 wherein it has been mentioned that in compliance of the order dated 14.11.2019 of this Court, both the parties have appeared before the concerned court below and stated that they have entered into compromise.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicants 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. do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, learned A.G.A. has no grievance and 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,
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 charge sheet dated 24.05.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3471 of 2018 (State vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No.115 of 2018, under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Prem Nagar, District- Bareilly, 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 :- 31.8.2020 JK Yadav