Jitendra Rajpal and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Virendra Saran, J.—Jitendra Rajpal, Raja Ram Rajpal, Savitri Devi and Leena Rajpal have filed this application for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case registered against them on the strength of charge-sheet arising out of Crime No. 145 of 1996 u/s 498A/504/506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of P. S. Kotwali Nagar, district Faizabad. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged by Anita, wife of applicant No. 1. In the F.I.R., it was mentioned that the Respondent was tortured for bringing more dowry and that is why, she left her matrimonial home and came to her father''s house along with her child.

I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants at length. I have also heard Sri Virendra Bhatia, learned Counsel for the Respondent, who has informed me that his client has taken away the file from him.

I have also heard learned Government Advocate.

Learned Counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to a compromise, which was entered into between the parties in a suit u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act being Suit No. 659 of 1995 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. In para 5 of the compromise, it is mentioned that the present case was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in which the present application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. was also pending. It is further mentioned that the compromise would also be applicable to this criminal case and that the wife was not desirous to pursue the case anymore. It, thus, appears that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. It has been argued by learned Government Advocate that the offences are not compoundable. However, the hard fact remains that the parties have come to terms and the wife is not desirous of prosecuting the present criminal case. Learned Counsel for the applicants has cited before me case of Rahul Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Anr. (XXXIV) 1997 ACC 446, in which learned single Judge of this Court has made the following observations:

In Bheru Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, , again where the marriage between the parties was dissolved by decree for divorce and all the matters were settled amicably, it was held that because there was no desire to pursue the proceedings and also because it is in the greater interest of justice if criminal proceedings are quashed.

The same view has been taken in Nirlape Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1993 (3) Crimes 922.

In the circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the continuance of the prosecution of the applicants will cause harassment to both the parties who have amicably settled their disputes and the Respondent wife is not likely to support the prosecution case. Continuance of the proceedings will result not only in waste of public time and money but will also cause harassment to both the parties. Thus, I am of the opinion that the present criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed. It may also be observed here that it will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case where compromise has been filed to determine whether by giving effect to the compromise, the proceedings be quashed or not.

Accordingly, this application is allowed. Proceedings in Crime No. 145 of 1996 u/s 498A/504/506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act of P. S. Kotwali Nagar, district Faizabad, are hereby quashed.