Allahabad High Court
Dinesh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. on 21 March, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:54590 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2195 of 2015 Appellant :- Dinesh And 5 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Singh,Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Rajendra Prasad Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellants - Dinesh, Smt. Sushma Devi, Kumari Nisha, Rakesh, Manoj and Smt. Shalu against the conviction and sentence recorded vide judgment and order dated 19.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No.1, Bulandshahar in S.T. No. 153 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime no.405 of 2010 under Sections 498-A,323,504,506 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act P.S Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar whereby appellants have been convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to 3 years R.I. each alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/- each and a default sentence of 1 month each; under section 323 IPC to Rs.1,000/- each as fine and a default sentence of 1 month; under Section 504 IPC to Rs.500/- as fine and a default sentence of 15 days each; under Section 506 IPC to 6 months R.I. each with a fine of Rs.500/- each and a default sentence of 15 days each; under Section 4 D.P. Act to 6 months R.I with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and a default sentence of 15 days each. All sentences were to run concurrently.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between appellant no.1 Dinesh and the complainant Menika is said to have taken place on 16.12.2010 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals, but the appellants (in-laws) were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and were demanding additional dowry and on account of said demand, complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her in-laws and ultimately she was ousted from her matrimonial house. Subsequently, on the basis of application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., FIR was lodged and investigation started and after investigation, charge-sheet submitted against the appellants. The concerned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and committed it to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial court framed the charges, to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses of fact and after evidence of prosecution witnesses the court recorded the statement of appellants u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court after considering all the materials available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned here-in-above.
3. It is relevant to mention here that the appellants in this Appeal have been released on bail vide order dated 29.05.2015. Even, at the time of grant of bail to the appellants, they were on interim bail and they were also on bail during trial.
4. A joint affidavit, which is on record, has been filed for disposal of the Appeal in the light of the compromise that has been entered into between the appellants and the complainant. Parties have finally decided to resolve the dispute between them and, as a consequence of the settlement / compromise arrived at between the parties, they do not want the appeal to remain pending any further. The complainant also does not want to pursue with the Appeal as an Objector any further. She wants the appeal to be disposed of in terms of the compromise that has been arrived at between the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar that between the same parties, some other matrimonial litigations were pending and in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 36203 of 2015, on the basis of compromise, proceedings of complaint case no.294 of 2015 under section 406 IPC were also quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.4.2017. The parties were given opportunity to file their settlement agreement before the Mediation Centre of this Court and it was also agreed upon in the settlement agreement dated 2.6.2016 acted upon between the parties that they will also file joint affidavit in Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2015 (Dinesh And 5 Others Vs. State of U.P.) pending before this Court and made request to consider the case in the light of settlement agreement acted upon between the parties.
8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that divorce petition filed by the parties has also been disposed of on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties and they have got divorce decree from the Court and it was also brought to the notice of this Court that now both the parties are free to solemnize their marriage according to their wish. It is further submitted that the complainant Menika performed second marriage on 29.11.2017 with one Hridesh Soni s/o Ravindra Kumar Soni r/o 46B Chandra Nagar, Kalwad Road, Govindpura, Jhotwari, Jaipur, Rajasthan and out of their wedlock, a male child has been born in the year 2020 and now he is aged about 3 years. It is also submitted that the appellant no.1 also performed his second marriage on 19.11.2019 with one Pushpa Soni d/o Negi Chand Soni r/o Keshavpur Malipada, Hindoun City, Karauli, Rajasthan and from their wedlock a male child has been born on 15.4.2023. The joint affidavit dated 28.4.2023 filed by the parties annexing the settlement agreement dated 2.6.2016 is on record wherein it has been averred that the complainant / informant herself does not want to proceed further in the present appeal. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the settlement / compromise between the parties, in the interest of justice, this appeal may be allowed. In support of their contentions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :
(i) Rajendra Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2022) 1 ALT (Crl) 252
(ii) Kailash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2018) ALLMR (Cri) 467
(iii) Sahil @ Chhotu & Ors. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12957 of 2022)
(iv) Santosh & Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.218 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.10275 of 2022)
(v) B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003 (4) SCC 675
(vi) Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303
9. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case the matrimonial dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320 IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, which has matrimonial flavour in view of the recorded settlement between the parties. The same principles have again been reiterated in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (Supra).
10. In view of this matter, if the appellants are permitted to face the prosecution even after compromise / settlement arrived at between the parties, it will only amount to be an abuse of process of Court and as it is clear that there will be no evidence in favour of the prosecution after the said settlement. The counsel for the complainant / informant and the counsel for the State as well have given their assent to the request made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
11. The appellants and the complainant have now come to an amicable settlement and they intend to resolve the dispute once and for all. The dispute before this Court is matrimonial in nature and with an intention of laying to rest the dispute between the parties, for all times to come, they have also jointly moved an affidavit with the prayer to allow the present appeal.
12. In view of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties and also taking note of the legal position as it stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also by the various High Courts, this Court is of the firm view that the pending proceedings before this Court in the present appeal are liable to be quashed and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
13. As a consequence, in the light of the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties, the present appeal stands allowed. The appellants therein stand acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Their personal bond and sureties, if any, are discharge.
14. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent forthwith to court concerned for compliance.
Order Date :- 21.3.2024 ss