The Single Judge quashed the summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 406 IPC in a matrimonial dispute, allowing the parties' compromise to bring proceedings to an end.
The summoning order dated 20.04.2019 and proceedings of Criminal Misc. No. 74 of 2018 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:218834
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31424 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt. Neetu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Raj,Alok Singh,Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party No.1, Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.
2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 20.04.2019 as well as proceedings of Criminal Misc. No. 74 of 2018 CNR No. UPET120011752018 (Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Neetu and others), under Section 406 I.P.C., Police StationSakrauli, District-Etah, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Jalesar, Etah.
3-Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this case as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicant No.1-Smt. Neetu is daughter-in-law of opposite party No.2 and applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are father, mother and uncle of applicant No.1 respectively. This is a matrimonial dispute between the applicant No. 1 and opposite party No.2. Marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized on 30.04.2012 with the son of opposite party No.2, but on account of acrimonious relation their marriage was not successful, as a result thereof, several litigations started from both the sides. So far as this case is concerned, opposite party no.2 filed a complaint dated 13.07.2018 against the applicants, in which after recording statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., applicants have been summoned vide order dated 20.04.2019, which is subject matter
of challenge in the present application. Thereafter parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise application has been moved before the concerned court below, which was directed to be verified vide order dated 09.05.2023 of this Court and in pursuance thereof, a compromise application has been verified by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Jalesar, Etah and sent its report dated 05.07.2023, which is on record.
4-On the strength of aforesaid facts it is submitted that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, therefore, aforesaid criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court.
5-Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party No.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
6-After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that after settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned want to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in a matrimonial dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of
conviction gets lost.
7-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 1 SCC (Cri) 848 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 , this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the ends of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties are brought to an end.
8-In view of the above, impugned summoning order dated 20.04.2019 and entire proceedings of aforesaid case being Criminal Misc. No. 74 of 2018 CNR No. UPET120011752018 (Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Neetu and others) against the applicants are hereby quashed.
9-In the conspectus of the aforesaid, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above.
Order Date :- 17.11.2023 Kashifa
Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute arising from a compromise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherExplained¶14
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 1 SCC (Cri) 848 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and othersExplained¶14
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Neetu and 3 Others
State of U.P.
Another
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
