Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2316 (ALL)

Vimlesh v. State of U. P.

2014-08-04

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is matrimonial dispute, applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party no.2, however due to some misunderstanding the complaint has been filed. He further submitted that if the matter is referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre then there is chances of compromise in between the parties. 3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer. 4. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties and nature of allegation. In the interest of justice, and in view of the facts and circumstances, if an application is moved on behalf of applicants within 30 days from today before the court below and Rs.1,000/- is deposited in cash before the court below in favour of Mediation Centre and a draft for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is deposited in favour of opposite party no.2 Smt. Rekha Devi wife of Vimlesh the matter will be referred to the Mediation Centre situated at District Court Mainpuri. The aforesaid draft in the name of opposite party no. 2 shall be handed over to her on first appearance. 5. Till report of the mediation centre is received, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in complaint case no.1159 of 2012, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri. After receiving the report of the Mediation Centre, if it is found that the matter has been settled between parties then no useful purpose would be served to continue the criminal proceedings hence the same shall stand dropped, in view of the judgement of Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 2003(4)SCC Page 675 and the present order passed by this Court. 6. If mediation fails and applicants appear before the court concerned within four weeks and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off, expeditiously, in accordance with law, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 , after giving opportunity to public prosecutor. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 , after giving opportunity to public prosecutor. If the bail application could not be decided on the same day then applicants may be released on interim bail till disposal of the bail application. 7. With these observations, Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off.