Moradabad, (State v. Sumit Chaudhary and others), otherwise the

1. Heard Mr. Ranveer Singh, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Devendra Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicants in Court today, is taken on record.

4. Applicants-Dhirendra Chaudhary And Another, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the charge sheet dated 20.1.2024 and cognizance order dated 14.6.2024, as well as further proceeding of Criminal case no. 16888 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 420 of 2023, under section 342, 376, 120B, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Learned Additional Session Judge, Court no.10, (State versus Sumit Chaudhary and others) may also be quashed. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further procceding of Criminal case no. 16888 of 2024, State versus Sumit Chaudhary and others, arising out of casc crime no. 420 of 2023, under sections 342, 376, 120B, 506 1.P.C, Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1, Moradabad, (State versus Sumit Chaudhary and others), otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, during pendency of the criminal misc. application or pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. Learned counsel for applicants submits that though applicants are named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial in above mentioned criminal case but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case as have emerged on record, the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicants contends that applicant-1 Dhirendra Chaudhary is husband of the prosecutrix/first informant opposite party-2. As such, the first informant opposite party-2 is the legally wedded wife of applicant- 1. However, on account of marital discord the relationship between applicant-1 and the prosecutrix first informant/opposite party-2 became strained. Ultimately, they reached a point of no return. During pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the terms of compromise were reduced in writing by way of a compromise deed dated 22.03.2024. Thereafter the said compromise was filed before Court below by means of an application dated 23.09.2024, which was also supported independently by the affidavit of first informant opposite party-2. Apart from above, the parties agreed to terminate their marital relationship. Consequently, divorce proceedings were initiated by way of a divorce suit in terms of Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. The said section was instituted by applicant- 1, Dhirendra Chaudhary and was registered as Matrimonial Petition No. 333 of 2024 (Dhirendra Chaudhary Vs. Anjali). The said divorce suit by way of mutual consent came to be decreed by Court concerned vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2024. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that once the marital relationship in between applicant-1 and the wife i.e. prosecutrix first informant/opposite party-2 has itself come to an end and the basis of the termination of marital relationship is the mutual consent of the parties, therefore, no ground exits to prolong the criminal prosecution of applicants in aforementioned criminal case. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721, the learned counsel for applicants submits that the compromise entered into by the parties in a matrimonial dispute has to be treated as an effective compromise so as to bring all disputes between the parties to an end. No exception can be carved out in the present case to the aforesaid judgment. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and are, therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the present application. They submits that there cannot be any compromise in matters relating to rape/sexual assault by reason of the judgment of Supreme Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana AIR Online 2019 SC 1716. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants, with reference to the record at this stage.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Devendra Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2, submits that it is now an admitted fact to the prosecutrix that marital discord between the parties now stand terminated in terms of the decree passed by the Family Judge, in divorce suit filed by the parties under Section 13- B of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, he could not dislodge the legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of this application.

8. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that it is an admitted fact that applicant-1 Dhirendra Chaudhary is her husband of prosecutrix first informant/opposite party-2. As such, the first informant opposite party-2 is the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. It is during the subsistence of marriage of the parties that FIR rise to present criminal proceedings was lodged by the wife/first informant opposite party-2. It is also an admitted fact that ultimately parties agreed to terminate the marital relationship. Resultantly Matrimonial Petition No. 333 of 2024 (Dhirendra Chaudhary Vs. Anjali) in terms of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act came to be filed before Court below which was decreed by the Family Judge vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2024. As such, the marital relationship between the parties has now to comet to an end by a decree of Court which has been passed on the consent of the parties.

9. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721, wherein, Court has opined that compromise entered into by the parties in matrimonial dispute has to be treated an effective compromise so as to bring to an end all dispute between the parties. No exception can be carved out to the aforesaid judgment in present case. As such, this Court finds that irrespective of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rampal (Supra), the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and are therefore, liable to be quashed by this court.

10. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

11. It is, accordingly, allowed.

12. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 16888 of 2024, (State versus Sumit Chaudhary and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 420 of 2023, under Sections 342, 376, 120B, 506 1.P.C, Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, now pending in the court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1, Moradabad, are, hereby, quashed.

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the cost is made easy. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Imtiyaz IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Ranveer Singh, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Devendra Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicants in Court today, is taken on record.

4. Applicants-Dhirendra Chaudhary And Another, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the charge sheet dated 20.1.2024 and cognizance order dated 14.6.2024, as well as further proceeding of Criminal case no. 16888 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 420 of 2023, under section 342, 376, 120B, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Learned Additional Session Judge, Court no.10, (State versus Sumit Chaudhary and others) may also be quashed. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further procceding of Criminal case no. 16888 of 2024, State versus Sumit Chaudhary and others, arising out of casc crime no. 420 of 2023, under sections 342, 376, 120B, 506 1.P.C, Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1, Moradabad, (State versus Sumit Chaudhary and others), otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, during pendency of the criminal misc. application or pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. Learned counsel for applicants submits that though applicants are named and charge sheeted accused and facing trial in above mentioned criminal case but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case as have emerged on record, the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicants contends that applicant-1 Dhirendra Chaudhary is husband of the prosecutrix/first informant opposite party-2. As such, the first informant opposite party-2 is the legally wedded wife of applicant- 1. However, on account of marital discord the relationship between applicant-1 and the prosecutrix first informant/opposite party-2 became strained. Ultimately, they reached a point of no return. During pendency of aforementioned criminal case, parties amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties, a compromise was entered into. Subsequently, the terms of compromise were reduced in writing by way of a compromise deed dated 22.03.2024. Thereafter the said compromise was filed before Court below by means of an application dated 23.09.2024, which was also supported independently by the affidavit of first informant opposite party-2. Apart from above, the parties agreed to terminate their marital relationship. Consequently, divorce proceedings were initiated by way of a divorce suit in terms of Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. The said section was instituted by applicant- 1, Dhirendra Chaudhary and was registered as Matrimonial Petition No. 333 of 2024 (Dhirendra Chaudhary Vs. Anjali). The said divorce suit by way of mutual consent came to be decreed by Court concerned vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2024. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that once the marital relationship in between applicant-1 and the wife i.e. prosecutrix first informant/opposite party-2 has itself come to an end and the basis of the termination of marital relationship is the mutual consent of the parties, therefore, no ground exits to prolong the criminal prosecution of applicants in aforementioned criminal case. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721, the learned counsel for applicants submits that the compromise entered into by the parties in a matrimonial dispute has to be treated as an effective compromise so as to bring all disputes between the parties to an end. No exception can be carved out in the present case to the aforesaid judgment. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and are, therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the present application. They submits that there cannot be any compromise in matters relating to rape/sexual assault by reason of the judgment of Supreme Court in Rampal Vs. State of Haryana AIR Online 2019 SC 1716. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants, with reference to the record at this stage.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Devendra Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2, submits that it is now an admitted fact to the prosecutrix that marital discord between the parties now stand terminated in terms of the decree passed by the Family Judge, in divorce suit filed by the parties under Section 13- B of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, he could not dislodge the legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants in support of this application.

8. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that it is an admitted fact that applicant-1 Dhirendra Chaudhary is her husband of prosecutrix first informant/opposite party-2. As such, the first informant opposite party-2 is the legally wedded wife of applicant-1. It is during the subsistence of marriage of the parties that FIR rise to present criminal proceedings was lodged by the wife/first informant opposite party-2. It is also an admitted fact that ultimately parties agreed to terminate the marital relationship. Resultantly Matrimonial Petition No. 333 of 2024 (Dhirendra Chaudhary Vs. Anjali) in terms of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act came to be filed before Court below which was decreed by the Family Judge vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2024. As such, the marital relationship between the parties has now to comet to an end by a decree of Court which has been passed on the consent of the parties.

9. At this juncture, reference be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721, wherein, Court has opined that compromise entered into by the parties in matrimonial dispute has to be treated an effective compromise so as to bring to an end all dispute between the parties. No exception can be carved out to the aforesaid judgment in present case. As such, this Court finds that irrespective of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rampal (Supra), the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and are therefore, liable to be quashed by this court.

10. In view of the discussion made above, the present application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

11. It is, accordingly, allowed.

12. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 16888 of 2024, (State versus Sumit Chaudhary and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 420 of 2023, under Sections 342, 376, 120B, 506 1.P.C, Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, now pending in the court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1, Moradabad, are, hereby, quashed.

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the cost is made easy. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Imtiyaz IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad