AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for opposite parties No. 2.
This application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 371 of 2009 arising out of case crime No. 2368 of 2008 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali - Ghazipur, District Ghazipur pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. In pursuance of order dated 12.5.2009, the matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court. Parties appeared before the Mediation Centre, came to terms and applicant No. 4 Gangesh Kumar Shukla and his wife Poonam Chaturvedi, daughter of opposite party No. 2 Ramdhari Chaubey executed final settlement agreement on 15.12.2009.
Clause 6 of the Settlement Agreement provides as under:
The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:
a. As per the interim settlement dated 10.11.2009 the Applicant No. 2 who is the father of the Applicant No. 4 has presented a draft worth Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rs. Five Lacs Only) which has been drawn in favour of Poonam Chaturvedi, D.D. No. 242556 dated 12.12.2009 of SBI, Ghazipur Branch, the aforesaid draft shall remain with the Mediation Centre till all the disputes pending between both the parties are withdrawn and a decree of mutual divorce has been obtained.
b. That the parties undertake that they will not litigate or harass each other in any manner in future.
c. That both the husband and wife will obtain the decree of divorce through mutual consent from the appropriate court concerned i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Farukhabad where Case No. 107 of 2008 regarding Restitution of Conjugal Rights u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is pending.
d. That both the parties shall also withdraw all the cases pending between them in different courts.
e. That the child Prakhar, born out of the wedlock between Gangesh Kumar Shukla and Poonam Chaturvedi will be taken care of by Poonam Chaturvedi in future as such the child shall remain in her custody and she will be his guardian. It will be her responsibility to maintain the child Prakhar in future for which shall will not demand any extra money other than the aforesaid Rs. Five Lacs and in return the Applicants (Husband''s side) shall never claim the custody of the child in future.
f. That Smt. Poonam Chaturvedi also undertakes that she as well as her child Prakhar shall not claim inheritance in the property of Applicants in the Crl. Misc. App. No. 10455 of 2009 whether moveable or immovable in future.
g. That the wife Poonam Chaturvedi will be entitled to withdraw above aforesaid Draft of Rs. Five Lacs from the Mediation Centre only after all the pending cases between the parties in different courts are withdrawn and a decree of mutual divorce is obtained, through the direction of the Court.
h. That in case the validity of the demand draft expires in between, it will be incumbent upon the applicants to revalidate the same and only Smt. Poonam Chaturvedi and none else shall be able to withdraw the aforesaid draft from the Mediation Centre.
In pursuance of Settlement Agreement dated 15.12.2009, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs has been deposited with the Mediation Centre by means of Bank Draft No. 246149 dated 3.1.2011 of S.B.I., Ghazipur. Divorce Petition No. 107 of 2008 (Gangesh Kumar v. Smt. Poonam Chaturvedi) has also been decided on the basis of compromise between the parties vide judgment and decree dated 4.9.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Farrukhabad. Proceedings u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure have already been withdrawn.
Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 states that parties have come to terms and opposite party No. 2 as well as his daughter Smt. Poonam Chaturvedi have no objection if the proceedings pending before the Magistrate are quashed.
Offences punishable under Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable, however, the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, emphasized in para No. 6 as follows:
We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely 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.
The instant dispute, being a matrimonial dispute, is of a purely personal nature. Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled with the intervention of the Mediation Centre, it is futile to permit continuation of the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time, if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion, as there is no hope for conviction after compromise between the parties. The settlement agreement has been acted upon and parties have decided to part ways amicably.
Application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed.
The entire proceedings of criminal case No. 371 of 2009 arising out of case crime No. 2368 of 2008 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali - Ghazipur, District Ghazipur pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur are quashed.
The Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court is directed to hand over the Bank Draft of Rs. 5 lacs to Smt. Poonam Chaudhary, daughter of opposite party No. 2.