Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2722 (ALL)

KIRAN PANDEY v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-09-05

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well as learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. 2. The instant petition was filed for quashing the impugned order dated 23.1.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I Mirzapur in Case No. 3186 of 2009 (Rakesh Pandey v. Kiran Pandey and others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506(2) I.P.C., police station Aharaura, district Mirzapur. 3. The applicant No. 1 is the wife of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 had initiated the proceeding against the applicants by filing a complaint before the Courtof Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist Mirzapur which was registered as case number 3186 of 2009 whereby the applicants have been summoned under Sections 147, 323, 504 506(2) IPC, P.S, District Mirzapur vide impugned order dated 23.1.2010. 4. At the stage of admission the another Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.3.2010 referred the matter to the mediation centre while staying the proceeding of the aforesaid case and further directing the applicants to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,500/- within two weeks before the Mediation Centre by a bank draft in the name of the opposite party No. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the parties are that both the parties have entered into amicable settlement before the mediation centre and pursuant to which now they are living together as husband and wife and have removed all the differences against each other and have agreed that they will withdraw all the cases filed against each other. The applicants had filed a case against the opposite party No. 2 and his family members under Sections 498 A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and it was on 29.7.2010 referred before the mediation centre and it was agreed that they shall also withdraw the aforesaid case which was initiated by the applicant’s wife-opposite party No. 2. In the result, since the opposite party No. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, therefore, this petition may be decided in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties before the mediation centre. 5. In the result, since the opposite party No. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, therefore, this petition may be decided in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties before the mediation centre. 5. I have perused the report of the mediation centre dated 29.7.2010 that the parties have amicably settled their differences with certain conditions laid down in Clause (5) which is being reproduced below : Para 5 : The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediator/Conciliator. That this interim settlement agreement is being made to built trust between the parties. a. That the applicant and the O.P. No. 2 have come to the mediation centre after living together since 1.7.2010 in pursuance of the interim settlement/agreement dated 15.6.2010. b. That the applicant Smt. Kiran Pandey and the O.P. No. 2 Sri Rakesh Pandey have no more grievances or ill will against each other and they have lived happily for the las6t one month. c. That the applicant No. 1 and the O.P. NO. 2 Rakesh Kumar Pandey were married on 23.5.2005. They have a daughter out ot the said wedlock. The O.P. No. 2 Sri Rakesh Pandey has filed a complaint case under Section 147, 323,504, 506 IPC against his wife and her family members. The applicant No. 1 has earlier lodged the FIR under Section 498A, 323, 504IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act against the O.P. No. 2. d. That the allegation against the applicant No. 1 Smt. Kiran Pandey was that she often misbehave with the O.P. No. 2 and his parents moreover she visit her parents frequently without taking permission from him or his parents, the applicant Smt. Kiran Pandey has denied the allegation. e. That the applicant Smt. Kiran Pandey has agreed that she will not visit her parents frequently and shall take permission of her husband or her mother in law whenever she visit her parents. f. That O.P. No. 2 husband has agreed to took after the welfare of her wife and daughter. g. That the applicant No. 1 wife has also agreed to take care of her husband and her in laws. She will also be respectful to her husband and in laws. f. That O.P. No. 2 husband has agreed to took after the welfare of her wife and daughter. g. That the applicant No. 1 wife has also agreed to take care of her husband and her in laws. She will also be respectful to her husband and in laws. h. That the opposite party No. 2 agreed to withdraw the case No. 3186 of 2009 under Section 147, 323, 504, 506(2) IPC pending the Courtof Additional C.J.M., Mirzapur and he will not raise any objection if the Hon’ble High Court may quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case. i. That the applicant has also agreed to withdraw the maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending in the Courtbelow against the opposite party No. 2. j. That since all ill will and bitterness between the parties have disappeared therefore, there is no need to keep the matter pending, the applicant and the opposite party No. 2 may move the application alongwith the copy of the settlement agreement in the Courtof Additional Civil Judge (JD), Mirzapur who may decide the case under Section 498A, 323, 504IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act in view of this settlement agreement. k. That parties undertake that they will not initiate any fresh proceedings against each other in respect of their matrimonial dispute. 6. The learned AGA has no objection to decide the case in terms of the compromise arrived at between the applicant No. 1 alongwith other family members and the opposite party No. 2. 7. In view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others, 2003 (46) ACC 779 (SC), wherein, it is held that High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings of FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent powers, in case the parties have arrived at settlement agreement of their matrimonial disputes, and Section 320 Cr.P.C does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid case has also been relied in the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal and others, 2005 (51) ACC 217, where the Apex Court quashed the proceedings of criminal case under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506(2) I.P.C. as the parties have entered into a compromise and held that the Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can quash the proceedings, where the parties have entered into compromise. 8. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and in the light of the above mentioned decisions of the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that, no purpose will serve to keep this matter pending, as both the parties have finally entered into a compromise on 29.7.2010, and they have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes and do not want to contest the matter furthermore. Therefore, in the above conspectus the entire proceedings initiated against the applicants in Case No. 3186 of 2009 (Rakesh Pandey v. Kiran Pandey and others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506(2) I.P.C., police station Aharaura, district Mirzapur, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. However, mediation centre is directed to return the bank draft of Rs. 2,500/- in the name of Sri Rakesh Kumar Pandey-opposite party No. 2 which was deposited pursuant to the order dated 25.3.2010 by this Court within a fortnight for which the opposite party No. 2 shall move an appropriate application before the mediation centre. —————