Criminal Application No. 587 of 2004 · Uttarakhand High Court · 2010

Sri Navneet Kaushik, Adv. for the Petitioners Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Pawan Mishra, Adv. for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the applications and perused the record available. For the reasons stated, delay condonation application and restoration application, both are allowed. Delay of 38 days in filing the restoration application is condoned. Restoration application is also allowed. Order dated

12.4.2010 dismissing the petition for non-prosecution is recalled. The petition is restored to its original number. Heard. This criminal petition, moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the order dated

19.10.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, CBI Dehradun in Case No.4343 of 2004, State Vs. Vikas & others, and also for quashing the charge sheet in the said 2 case as Case Crime No.105 of 2004, U/s 498- A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at PS Raipur, District Dehradun. A compounding application No.687/2010 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and complainant/ respondent no.3 along with which the respective affidavits of the parties have been filed. In those affidavits, common averments have been made to the effect that the petitioner no.1-Vikas Kumar and respondent no.3-Smt. Kamini Devi, who were the husband and wife, decided to settle their matrimonial disputes and, therefore, they entered into a compromise before the court below, in which it was stated between both the parties that they will obtain the divorce with mutual consent and the respondent no.3 will also withdraw all the cases filed against the petitioners. It is further averred that the petitioner no.1 also paid the permanent alimony to the respondent no.3 and now they are residing separately and there is no dispute between them and therefore, the respondent no.3 does not want to press any case against the petitioner no.1 and his family members and she wants to withdraw all the cases against the petitioners. As such, it is prayed that the parties may be permitted to compound the case and the order dated

1910.2004, charge sheet and proceedings of criminal case no.4343 of 2004, State Vs. Vikas Kumar & others U/s 498- A/ 323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 Prohibition Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Dehradun, may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for both the parties also verified the contents of the compounding application, as above stated. In a judgment delivered by the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & others Vs. State of Haryana & 3 Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC P675, the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in paragraphs 12 and 13 held as under:- (cid:147)12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.(cid:148) Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment of the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal & others reported in 2005 SCC (Cri.) 719‚ para 5, 6 & 9 whereof are quoted as below: - (cid:147)5. In the compromise petition, referred to herein above, both the parties had agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed by each against the other. It is pursuant to this compromise, the above divorce as sought for by the appellant was granted by the husband and pursuant to the said compromise deed the appellant also withdrew Criminal Case No.63 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Nainital which was a complaint filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. It is on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the appellant and on the basis of the terms of the compromise, said case came to be dismissed. However, so far as the complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, which is the subject matter of this appeal, the appellant did not take any steps to withdraw the same. It is in those circumstances, a quashing petition was filed before the High Court which came to be partially allowed on the ground of the territorial jurisdiction, against the said order the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4

6. From the above-narrated facts, it is clear that in the compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the appellant admitted that she has received Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be entitled to maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook to withdraw all proceedings civil and criminal filed and initiated by her against the respondents within one month of the compromise deed which included the complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint this appeal arises. In the said compromise, the respondent- husband agreed to withdraw his petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Senior Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also agreed to give a consent divorce as sought for by the appellant.

9. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings arising from the Criminal Case No.Cr.No.224/2003 registered in Police Station, Bilaspur, (Distt.Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is disposed of.(cid:148) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court, as quoted above, I find that in view of the aforesaid compromise arrived at in between the parties which was also verified by the counsel appearing on their behalf, no useful purpose will be served to prolong the pendency of the above mentioned case. Considering the above facts and the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the charge-sheet as mentioned above as well as the proceedings in Case No.4343 of 2004, State Vs. Vikas & others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Dehradun U/s 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Raipur, Distt. Dehradun are hereby quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 17.12.2004 stands vacated. Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.) July 9, 2010