Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4149 (ALL)

Vimal Mehra v. State of U. P.

2016-12-22

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Heard Sri Amit Rana, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Tapan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 6830 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 193 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act , P.S. Railway Road, District Meerut. Sri Tapan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. A copy of the compromise that has taken between the parties has been placed on record in annexure-3 to the affidavit, wherein clause 2 (c) refers to the present case that on payment of third and final installment of Rs. 7,00,000/- by way of demand draft/pay order before this Court quashing of the present case may be sought. The aforesaid clause is quoted as under: "The third and the final instalment of Rs. 7,00,000/- shall be paid by the First Party to the Second Party by way of Demand Draft/Pay Order before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, U.P. at the time of quashing of the aforementioned FIR No. 193 P.S. Railway Road, Meerut, U.P. The said petition shall be filed by the First Party before the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad within a period one week from the date of passing of decree of divorce i.e., after Second Motion by the Concerned Court. It is undertaken by the Second Party that Second Party and or her father shall support the said petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the aforementioned FIR by filing an appropriate affidavit/document to get the said FIR quashed and Second Party and her father will also support to get all criminal cases filed against the First Party and his family members withdrawn from the Court concerned". It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid agreement has been put into execution and on the basis of the same consented decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed by the Principal Judge, South-West District, Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi vide order dated 04.08.2016. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid agreement has been put into execution and on the basis of the same consented decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed by the Principal Judge, South-West District, Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi vide order dated 04.08.2016. Today, Managers Cheque/Demand Draft Cheque No. 000304 dated 15.12.2016 of HDFC Bank issued in favour of Priyanka Batra, opposite party no.2 has been presented before this Court and handed over to her counsel Sri Tapan Mishra, who states that he is authorized to receive such draft of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Tapan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite nos. 2 and 3 are directed to give a receiving of the same on the order-sheet of this Court. In view of the fact, that a compromise has already been taken place and which has also been put into execution based thereon decree of dissolution of marriage has also been filed given by the Competent Court. It is submitted that since between the parties compromise had already taken place, which has also been put to execution as such, prayer is that the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana), J.T. 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of investigation and another), (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab), (2014) 9 SCC 653 (Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Jharkhand) and also (2014) 6 SCC 466 (Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside. The present application is accordingly allowed.