Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 481 (ALL)

VINAY ADNANI v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-02-28

S.C.AGARWAL

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—Parcha filed by Sri Nitin Agarwal on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Nitin Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet No. 42 of 2010 dated 6.2.2010 arising out of case crime No. 1657 of 2009 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi as well as proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2576 of 2010 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. Opposite party No. 2 is the wife of applicant No. 1. Applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are mother, uncle and aunt of applicant No. 1. Applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 were married on 10.7.2008. Subsequently, on 20.10.2009, FIR was lodged by the complainant against the applicants alleging harassment on behalf of demand of dowry. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that parties have come to terms. They have decided to obtain a decree under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and it was also decided that applicant No. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs.18 lacs to opposite party No. 2. A copy of the compromise has been filed before the Magistrate concerned and a sum of Rs.18 lacs through bank drafts of Rs.9 lacs each have been deposited in the Family Court, Allahabad in divorce suit No. 83 of 2011 filed by Smt. Priyanka Vinay Adnani and Vinay Adnani. In support of the application, a joint affidavit sworn by applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 has been filed. Paragraph 8 of the joint affidavit is reproduced below : “8. That in the aforesaid case, the parties have entered into compromise out of Court and settled the dispute. The applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 have executed a compromise and agreed to dissolve their relation by way of obtaining divorce under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act. That in the aforesaid case, the parties have entered into compromise out of Court and settled the dispute. The applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 have executed a compromise and agreed to dissolve their relation by way of obtaining divorce under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act. It is agreed by the applicant No. 1 that he will pay a sum of Rs.18 lacs to the opposite party No. 2 by way of demand draft. The applicant No. 1 has got prepared the demand draft for a sum of Rs.18 lacs vide draft No. 197291 and 197292. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court, a true copy of the Compromise executed in between the applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 and the copies of Drafts are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 3 and 4 to this Affidavit.” 4. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 admits that parties have come to terms. It is a matrimonial dispute, which has been resolved. They have decided to separate from each other and to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent and the complainant / opposite party No. 2 has no objection if the proceedings pending before the Magistrate are quashed. Section 498A IPC is not compoundable, however, the Apex Court in the case of ‘Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab’, (2008)4 SCC 582 , emphasised in para No. 6 as follows : “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” 5. The instant dispute, being a matrimonial dispute, is of a purely personal nature. Parties have come to terms and have decided to separate from each other and to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” 5. The instant dispute, being a matrimonial dispute, is of a purely personal nature. Parties have come to terms and have decided to separate from each other and to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Since all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and mutually settled, it is futile to permit continuation of the criminal case pending before the trial Court and it would simply be a waste of time, if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion. Compromise has been acted upon and parties have settled all their disputes. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 6. The entire proceedings of criminal case No. 2576 of 2010 arising out of case crime No. 1657 of 2009, State v. Vinay Adnani and others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi are quashed. —————