Allahabad High Court
Babalu Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 September, 2019
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34963 of 2019 Applicant :- Babalu Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned Advocate has filed compromise affidavit along with his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge-sheet No. 74 of 2018 dated 19.3.2018, cognizance order dated 15.6.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5941 of 2018 (State vs. Babalu Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 689 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana, district Moradabad pending in the Court of ACJM, Court No. 4, Moradabad.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is husband of opposite party no. 2. Marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized about six years back with opposite party no. 2, but on account of acrimonious relation, opposite party no. 2 lodged the impugned FIR on 23.211.2017 against the applicants and his family members under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 19.3.2018, on which the Magistrate concerned took cognizance on 15.6.2018. After submission of charge-sheet, on 26.6.2019 the parties concerned entered into a compromise outside the Court and settlement arrived at between the parties concerned, as a result thereof opposite party No. 2 (wife) is living with the applicant (husband) in her matrimonial home and averment in this regard has been mentioned in paras 10, 11 and 12 of the application.
Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts.
It is submitted that no compromise application has yet been filed before the concerned court below, where criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant and requested to allow the applicant 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 applicant three weeks time is allowed to the applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant in the aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 23.9.2019 Sumaira