High Court

1. Heard Mr. Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.5135 of 2022 (State Vs. Mukesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1047 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a mutual divorce petition under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing HMA Petition No.557 of 2024 was filed before the Family Court, Karkardooma Shahadra, Delhi and during the pendency, the matter was referred to the Counseling Cell where all the dispute and differences were settled between the parties and the parties have arrived at a settlement deed dated 22.01.2024 on the following terms and conditions:- "1. That the petitioner and respondent shall take divorce by way of mutual consent within the jurisdiction of Delhi Court.

2. It is agreed between the parties that the husband/respondent shall pay to the wife/petitioner a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- (Five Lakhs Soventy thousand only) as full and final settlement (against istridhan, dowry, maintenance, compensation and permanent alimony towards past, present and future qua this marriage and nothing shall remain due qua this marriage).

3. It has been agreed between the parties that the above settled amount of Rs.5,70,000/- shall paid by the respondent to the petitioner by way of cash/demand draft in the following manner:- i. Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lakhs only) shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner at the time of first motion statement. The first motion petition shall be filed by the parties within fifteen days from the date of settlement. ii Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lakhs only) shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner at the time of second motion statement. The second motion petition shall be filed by the parties after first motion statement within one month. (iii) Rs. 1,70,000/- (One Lakh Seventy thousand only) shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner at the time of quashing of FIR No. 1047/21 498- A/406/34 IPC P.S. Loni Border before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. It has been further agreed between the parties that the respondent shall file the petition for quashing of above FIR before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad within two months after dissolution of marriage. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in all manner with the respondent and his family members. (iv) It is agreed between the parties that the petitioner will withdraw the case of 12 of D.V. Aετ and the 125 Cr. P.C. after first motion and before second motion.

4. It is agreed between the parties that the petitioner and respondent will never harass each other in future and will not interfere in the life of each other.

5. It is agreed between the parties that they shall not file any case/complaint/litigation against each other in future in respect of the aforesaid matrimonial dispute in future."

4. As per the aforesaid terms and conditions, the opposite party no.2 had agreed to settle the matter for an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- out of which Rs.4,00,000/- have already been paid to her. Today, on the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the applicants has come up with a draft of remaining amount of Rs.1,70,000/-.

5. The opposite party no.2- Mrs. Rajkumari @ Pooja is present before this Court and has been identified by her counsel Mr. Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. She has stated before this Court that in case remaining amount of Rs.1,70,000/- is given to her, she does not wish to proceed with the present case. She has further stated that divorce decree has already issued by mutual consent.

6. In view of the above, the demand draft No. 001700 of Rs. 17,00,000/- issued by AU Small Finance Bank, Rohini Delhi in favour of Rajkumari is being handed over to Smt. Rajkumari, the opposite party no.2 today in the Court in presence of Mr. Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, after retaining a photo copy of the same on record.

7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the statement given by Smt. Rajkumari, opposite party no.2 before this Court in presence of, Mr. Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

10. Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.5135 of 2022 (State Vs. Mukesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1047 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad, on the basis of statement of opposite party no.2 given before this Court, are hereby quashed.

11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Abhishek Singh

1. Heard Mr. Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

2. This application u/s 482 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.5135 of 2022 (State Vs. Mukesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1047 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a mutual divorce petition under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing HMA Petition No.557 of 2024 was filed before the Family Court, Karkardooma Shahadra, Delhi and during the pendency, the matter was referred to the Counseling Cell where all the dispute and differences were settled between the parties and the parties have arrived at a settlement deed dated 22.01.2024 on the following terms and conditions:- "1. That the petitioner and respondent shall take divorce by way of mutual consent within the jurisdiction of Delhi Court.

2. It is agreed between the parties that the husband/respondent shall pay to the wife/petitioner a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- (Five Lakhs Soventy thousand only) as full and final settlement (against istridhan, dowry, maintenance, compensation and permanent alimony towards past, present and future qua this marriage and nothing shall remain due qua this marriage).

3. It has been agreed between the parties that the above settled amount of Rs.5,70,000/- shall paid by the respondent to the petitioner by way of cash/demand draft in the following manner:- i. Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lakhs only) shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner at the time of first motion statement. The first motion petition shall be filed by the parties within fifteen days from the date of settlement. ii Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lakhs only) shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner at the time of second motion statement. The second motion petition shall be filed by the parties after first motion statement within one month. (iii) Rs. 1,70,000/- (One Lakh Seventy thousand only) shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner at the time of quashing of FIR No. 1047/21 498- A/406/34 IPC P.S. Loni Border before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. It has been further agreed between the parties that the respondent shall file the petition for quashing of above FIR before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad within two months after dissolution of marriage. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in all manner with the respondent and his family members. (iv) It is agreed between the parties that the petitioner will withdraw the case of 12 of D.V. Aετ and the 125 Cr. P.C. after first motion and before second motion.

4. It is agreed between the parties that the petitioner and respondent will never harass each other in future and will not interfere in the life of each other.

5. It is agreed between the parties that they shall not file any case/complaint/litigation against each other in future in respect of the aforesaid matrimonial dispute in future."

4. As per the aforesaid terms and conditions, the opposite party no.2 had agreed to settle the matter for an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- out of which Rs.4,00,000/- have already been paid to her. Today, on the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the applicants has come up with a draft of remaining amount of Rs.1,70,000/-.

5. The opposite party no.2- Mrs. Rajkumari @ Pooja is present before this Court and has been identified by her counsel Mr. Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. She has stated before this Court that in case remaining amount of Rs.1,70,000/- is given to her, she does not wish to proceed with the present case. She has further stated that divorce decree has already issued by mutual consent.

6. In view of the above, the demand draft No. 001700 of Rs. 17,00,000/- issued by AU Small Finance Bank, Rohini Delhi in favour of Rajkumari is being handed over to Smt. Rajkumari, the opposite party no.2 today in the Court in presence of Mr. Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, after retaining a photo copy of the same on record.

7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the statement given by Smt. Rajkumari, opposite party no.2 before this Court in presence of, Mr. Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

10. Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.5135 of 2022 (State Vs. Mukesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1047 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Loni Border, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad, on the basis of statement of opposite party no.2 given before this Court, are hereby quashed.

11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Abhishek Singh