Allahabad High Court
Archit Gupta And 3 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 7 January, 2021
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40507 of 2019 Applicant :- Archit Gupta And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Radhey Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
The applications have been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 56 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 504, 506, 377 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras on the basis of compromise.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. Vide order dated 14.11.2019, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Pursuant to which, a compromise has taken place between the parties before the Mediation Centre. Report has also been sent by the Mediation Centre along with settlement agreement dated 21.11.2020, which is quoted as under:-
" 7) the following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:-
a) The parties have already settled their dispute and filed a divorce petition u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 10.11.2020 in Family Court, Hathras, which is registered as Case No. 513 of 2020 in which the next dated is fixed 12.05.20121. The certified copy of aforesaid divorce petition and order-sheet are annexed to this settlement for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
b) That it has been agreed between the parties that the applicant-husband shall pay a permanent alimony inlcuding Stridhan of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) to the wife by way of demand draft in installments.
c) That on 07.11.2020, the applicant-husband had produced a demand draft bearing no. 336722 dated 05.11.2020 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank for Rs. 12,50,000/- (Twelve Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) in favour of Niyati Tejaswini, which was being kept in the file of the Mediation Centre and the same has been handed over to the wife (Smt. Niyati Tejaswini) and she has acknowledged the receipt of the same.
d) That it has been agreed between the parties that the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 12,50,000/- (Twelve Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) shall be paid by the applicant Archit Gupta, to O.P. No. 2 Smt. Niyati Tejaswini at the time of final judgment in Family Court, Hathras, by way of demand draft of a nationalized bank.
e) That with the consent of both the parties, the O.P. No. 2 Smt. Niyati Tejaswini will unblock her authoritatized of operation with saving bank account no. 0311535246 of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Paschim Vihar, Delhi and the applicant-husband (Archit Gupta) after withdrawal of the balance in the said account, the account will be closed by the applicant-husband (Archit Gupta).
f) That it has been agreed between the parties that the following cases shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taking necessary steps before the Court/authority concerned:
a) Case No. 1384 of 2019, (Archit Gupta Vs. Niyati Tejaswini) filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before District Judgeship, Tis Hajari Court, New Delhi.
b) Case No. 1700360 of 2019 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. (Niyati Tejaswini Vs. Archit), pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras.
c) Case Crime No. 56 of 2019 u/s Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 354, 377, 376D, 506, 108A of Indian Penal Code, P.S. Hathras, District- Hathras.
g) That it has been agreed between the parties that they will not use in any manner against each other in using obscene vedios/photographs/chats from any platform.
h) That it has been agreed between the parties, that after final decision in the case filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras passed then only the LOC will be released.
i) That it has been agreed between the parties that the cases filed by them against each other regarding present matrimonial dispute shall be withdrawn by the parties concerned by taken appropriate steps before the Court/authority concerned.
j) That it has also been agreed between the parties that they will not file any case/complaint against each other regarding the present matrimonial dispute in future also.
k)That it has been agreed between the parties that they shall not violate the terms and conditions of this settlement-agreement, otherwise the aggrieved party will be free to take legal recourse."
It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that pursuant to aforesaid agreement between the parties, the opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the matter against the applicants and all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 too reiterates the submissions made on behalf of the accused-applicants and in so many words has urged before the Court that the opposite party no.2 has no objection if the present application in question is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:
(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;
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 Crime No. 56 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 504, 506, 377 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, are hereby quashed.
The applications are, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 JK Yadav