High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P./opposite party No.1, 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 with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 40 of 2021 dated 03.10.2021, supplementary charge sheet No. 40A of 2022 dated 24.08.2022, cognizance as well as summoning order dated 07.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women), Kanpur Nagar and further proceedings of Case No. 213873 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramji Tripathi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that applicants, namely, Ramji Tripathi, Awadesh Kumar Tripathi and Smt. Sarla Tripathi are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party No. 2-Smt. Vartika Shukla. Marriage of applicant No. 1 with opposite party No. 2 was solemnized on 14.05.2019, but on account of acrimonious relation their marriage was not successful as a result thereof opposite party No. 2 lodged a first information report on 12.03.2021 for the alleged offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants, in which after culmination of investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 24.08.2022, on which the concerned court below took cognizance on 07.11.2022 and summoned the applicants to face trial. Vide order of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.02.2023, matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, but mediation between the parties concerned was failed on 06.07.2023. However, during the pendency of this case another effort was made by the parties concerned to settle the dispute. Accordingly, following order was passed by this Court on 26.11.2024:- "On the matter being taken up, it is pointed out that vide order dated 03.02.2023, the matter was referred to medication centre of this Court, but mediation between the parties concerned failed. However, as on date, both the parties are agreed to settle their dispute and accordingly, the applicants' side offered a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (fifteen lacs) for the settlement, which has been accepted from the side of opposite party No. 2. So far as terms and conditions as well as mode of payment are concerned, they jointly submits that one more opportunity may be given to them to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 03.12.2024. In the interest of justice, this Court feels that the prayer made by learned counsel for the parties is liable to be accepted. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicants and opposite party No. 2 shall appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 03.12.2024 at 2:00 PM. The mediation centre shall make appropriate arrangement for their sitting and conversation. The mediation shall be completed on the same day positively by 5:00 PM. The mediation centre shall submit its report about mediation between the parties concerned within 24 hours to this Court. Let this matter be listed on 05.12.2024. OfÏce shall communicate this order to the OfÏcer concerned of the mediation centre within two days." Pursuant to the above order dated 26.11.2024 the parties concerned have settled their disputes and differences amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 17.12.2024. The report dated 17.12.2024 of mediation centre is on record. It is also pointed out that it has been agreed between the parties concerned that applicant No. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to Smt. Vartika Shukla/opposite party No. 2, out of said amount a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- has already been paid by applicant No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 on 13.12.2024. So far as remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- is concerned, it has been agreed between them that the same will be paid by applicant No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 by way of demand draft at the time of final judgment/second motion in the divorce petition, which is still pending before the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the remaining amount as noted above shall be paid in terms of agreement between the parties concerned.

5. 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.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate and 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 if the criminal proceeding against the applicants is quashed.

7. 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 wants 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.

8. 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.

9. In view of the above, impugned charge sheet No. 40 of 2021 dated 03.10.2021, supplementary charge sheet No. 40A of 2022 dated 24.08.2022, cognizance as well as summoning order dated 07.11.2022 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women), Kanpur Nagar and further proceeding of Case No. 213873 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramji Tripathi and others) against the applicants are hereby quashed.

10. 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 :- 30.4.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P./opposite party No.1, 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 with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 40 of 2021 dated 03.10.2021, supplementary charge sheet No. 40A of 2022 dated 24.08.2022, cognizance as well as summoning order dated 07.11.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women), Kanpur Nagar and further proceedings of Case No. 213873 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramji Tripathi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that applicants, namely, Ramji Tripathi, Awadesh Kumar Tripathi and Smt. Sarla Tripathi are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party No. 2-Smt. Vartika Shukla. Marriage of applicant No. 1 with opposite party No. 2 was solemnized on 14.05.2019, but on account of acrimonious relation their marriage was not successful as a result thereof opposite party No. 2 lodged a first information report on 12.03.2021 for the alleged offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants, in which after culmination of investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 24.08.2022, on which the concerned court below took cognizance on 07.11.2022 and summoned the applicants to face trial. Vide order of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.02.2023, matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, but mediation between the parties concerned was failed on 06.07.2023. However, during the pendency of this case another effort was made by the parties concerned to settle the dispute. Accordingly, following order was passed by this Court on 26.11.2024:- "On the matter being taken up, it is pointed out that vide order dated 03.02.2023, the matter was referred to medication centre of this Court, but mediation between the parties concerned failed. However, as on date, both the parties are agreed to settle their dispute and accordingly, the applicants' side offered a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (fifteen lacs) for the settlement, which has been accepted from the side of opposite party No. 2. So far as terms and conditions as well as mode of payment are concerned, they jointly submits that one more opportunity may be given to them to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 03.12.2024. In the interest of justice, this Court feels that the prayer made by learned counsel for the parties is liable to be accepted. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicants and opposite party No. 2 shall appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 03.12.2024 at 2:00 PM. The mediation centre shall make appropriate arrangement for their sitting and conversation. The mediation shall be completed on the same day positively by 5:00 PM. The mediation centre shall submit its report about mediation between the parties concerned within 24 hours to this Court. Let this matter be listed on 05.12.2024. OfÏce shall communicate this order to the OfÏcer concerned of the mediation centre within two days." Pursuant to the above order dated 26.11.2024 the parties concerned have settled their disputes and differences amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 17.12.2024. The report dated 17.12.2024 of mediation centre is on record. It is also pointed out that it has been agreed between the parties concerned that applicant No. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to Smt. Vartika Shukla/opposite party No. 2, out of said amount a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- has already been paid by applicant No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 on 13.12.2024. So far as remaining amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- is concerned, it has been agreed between them that the same will be paid by applicant No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 by way of demand draft at the time of final judgment/second motion in the divorce petition, which is still pending before the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the remaining amount as noted above shall be paid in terms of agreement between the parties concerned.

5. 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.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate and 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 if the criminal proceeding against the applicants is quashed.

7. 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 wants 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.

8. 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.

9. In view of the above, impugned charge sheet No. 40 of 2021 dated 03.10.2021, supplementary charge sheet No. 40A of 2022 dated 24.08.2022, cognizance as well as summoning order dated 07.11.2022 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women), Kanpur Nagar and further proceeding of Case No. 213873 of 2022 (State Vs. Ramji Tripathi and others) against the applicants are hereby quashed.

10. 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 :- 30.4.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad