Mewa Lal and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri Ajay Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 10.5.2006 as well as supplementary affidavit charge sheet dated 9.7.2006 and further proceedings of case No. 2188 of 2006 arising out of case Crime No. CC13/2005, under Sections 498-A IPC and u/s 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Chilwatal, district Gorakhpur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Gorakhpur.

Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that parties have come to terms. It is a matrimonial dispute. The marriage of the applicant No. 4 Santosh Kumar and Smt. Anita Gupta, the daughter of complainant Shiv Charan Prasad has been resolved by a decree of divorce on the basis of compromise, and therefore, the proceedings be quashed.

A compromise petition was filed by applicant No. 4 Santosh Kumar and Smt Anita Gupta jointly in the Family Court, Lucknow being Divorce Petition No. 1563 of 2004, Santosh Kumar Gupta v. Anita Gupta and the divorce petition was decided in terms of compromise dated 22.7.2010 by a judgment and decree dated 22.7.2010. The aforesaid compromise was made part of decree. A copy of the decree and the compromise have been filed as Annexure Nos. RA-1 and RA-2 to the Rejoinder Affidavit. In paragraph No. 5 of the compromise petition, it was mentioned that the parties would get the criminal case No. 2188 of 2006 arising out of Crime No. 13 of 2005, u/s 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act decided in terms of compromise.

An affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and his daughter Smt. Anita Gupta is taken on record.

In the said affidavit, the factor of compromise have been admitted.

Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 states that the complainant or his daughter has no objection if the proceedings pending before the Magistrate are quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.

Offence u/s 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act are not compoundable. However, the Apex Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 2 SCC 464 observed as under:

We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a pure personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law

It is a matrimonial dispute. Parties have come to terms and have decided to live separately. Their marriage has been resolved by a decree of divorce in pursuance of compromise between them.

In these circumstances, it would not be proper, if the case pending before the trial court is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion as after compromise between the parties, no result in favour of the prosecution can be expected and continuance of the trial would simply means wastage of time of the Court.

In these circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed.

Application is allowed. The entire proceedings in the above noted case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Court No. 17, Gorakhpur are quashed.