State v. Pramod Singh
Case Details
Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25358 of 2021 Applicant :- Pramod Singh @ Munnu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Garg Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the chargesheet No. 01 of 2020 dated 03.12.2020 filed in Case Crime No. 726 of 2020 under Section 406 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District- Banda as well as the summoning order dated 04.01.2021 passed by C.J.M., Banda in Criminal Case No. 128/IX/2021. On 07.03.2022, the following order was passed: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal misc. application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 03.12.2020 filed in case crime no.726 of 2020, U/s 406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Banda and its summoning order dated 04.01.2021 passed by court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Banda in criminal case no.128/IX/2021 (State vs. Pramod Singh @ Munnu) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda. The opposite party no.2 has lodged an FIR against the applicants for offence under section 419, 420, 394 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under section 406 IPC. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the opposite party no.2 (Mausi/ Chachi) of the applicants, she on her own free will has executed sale deed in favour of the applicants of her two houses but later on under the influence of Vinod Singh the elder brother of Pramod Singh, this FIR has been lodged. During investigation, no offence as mentioned in the FIR was found to have happened but the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet under section 406 IPC, no offence under section 406 IPC is made out. It is further contended that opposite party no.2 is living with the applicants, her age is 96 years old. In her statement, she has denied the allegations of maar-peet and loot and has said that she has executed the sale deed on the assurance of the applicants that they will returne it. From the perusal of the material on record, it appears to be a family dispute, considering the entire material and submission of counsel for the applicants, there is a chance of settlement of the dispute through mediation. As the opposite party no.2 is 96 years old, it will be proper to refer the matter for mediation at local level. Applicants through counsel will move an application before the concerned Magistrate within two weeks from today for referring the matter to mediation. If such an application is moved, the learned Magistrate pass appropriate orders on it after issuing notice to opposite party no.2. If the opposite party no.2 consent for mediation then the matter be referred for mediation proceedings and the learned Magistrate shall submit its report about the whole affairs before the next date of listing. Put up this case on 05.05.2022 as fresh. Till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case crime." In compliance of the aforesaid order, notices were issued to opposite party by the lower court concerned but as per report dated 05.08.2022, notices could not be served upon opposite party no.2 as she was not present at her residence and had gone to some relative's place. Thereafter, fresh notices were issued fixing 05.08.2022. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on 05.08.2022 also, the opposite party no.2 was not present before the District Court. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in case the matter is referred to the Mediation Centre, the parties may get an opportunity to settle their dispute. The Apex Court in the case of 'Rajesh Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and another', reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 3869, has issued certain directions regarding disputes covered under section 498-A IPC. Paragraph 19 of the judgement which contains the directions so issued, is reproduced hereunder:- "19. Thus, after careful consideration of the whole issue, we consider it fit to give following directions :- (i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority. (b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing. (c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses. (d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication. (e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint. (f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter. (g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected. (h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit. (i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time. (j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable. (k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper. (ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officer may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from today; (iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord; (iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day's notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed; (v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine; (vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and (vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death." In view of the aforesaid, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before this Court. The Court below is directed to refer the parties to the committee constituted for mediation at the District concerned within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The Mediation Centre shall submit its report within one month from the date of receipt of the case before the learned Magistrate. For a period of two months from today or till the submission of the report by the Mediation Centre, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. If bail application is filed by the applicants, the same shall be decided according to the direction contained in Rajesh Sharma's case (supra). It is, however, provided that in case the mediation fails, the applicants shall be at liberty to file a fresh application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Decision
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.8.2022 Madhurima Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.08.25 15:16:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad