Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2519 (ALL)

Shakil v. State of U. P.

2014-08-19

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to correct name of opposite party no.2. 2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of complaint case no.1465 of 2013, under section 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Niwari, District Ghaziabad and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no.1 is husband of complainant. The applicant nos.2 is mother-in-law and 3 is deverani. The mother-in-law is blind. Though complaint has been filed with false allegation, however, specific allegation is only against the husband. However, applicants no.2 and 3 were also implicated. Since there was general allegation hence complaint at least against applicants no.2 and 3 is not maintainable in view of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 . He further submitted that if the matter is referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre then there is chances of compromise in between the parties. 5. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. 6. 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.5000/- is deposited in favour of opposite party no.2, Smt. Mahraj, the matter will be referred to the mediation centre situated at district court Ghaziabad. The aforesaid draft in the name of opposite party no.2 shall be handed over to her on her first appearance. 7. Till report of the mediation centre is received, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. 8. After receiving the report/settlement of Mediation Centre, if it is found that the matter has been settled between the parties then no useful purpose would be served to continue the criminal proceedings hence the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case shall stand dropped in view of the judgement of Apex Court in case of B.S.Joshi Vs. 8. After receiving the report/settlement of Mediation Centre, if it is found that the matter has been settled between the parties then no useful purpose would be served to continue the criminal proceedings hence the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case 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. 9. However, if mediation fails then if objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicants no.2 and 3 within 30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. 10. Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants no.2 and 3. 11. As far as applicant no.1 is concerned, if mediation fails and applicant no.1 appears before the courts below within 30 days and applies for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in view of the principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in 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 . With these observations, application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off.