Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1330 (ALL)

Yogeesh Pandey v. State of U. P.

2022-08-23

GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rama Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bablu Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Rakesh Chandra Srivastava and Si Adarsh Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. By means of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant is challenging the proceedings of Case No. 4912 of 2017 (State Vs. Yogesh Pandey and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 0159 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending before learned VIIIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Ghaziabad. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the opposite party no.2 on 26.11.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals but due to matrimonial discord, the party started living separately since 28.11.2016. Later on, a first information report dated 27.04.2017 was lodged by the opposite party no.2 in Case Crime No. 0159 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad against the applicant and one Sudha Pandey. Thereafter, the matter was entrusted for investigation, which culminated in submission of charge sheet against the applicant and co-accused Sudha Pandey, upon which cognizance was taken and case was registered as Case No. 4912 of 2017 (State Vs. Yogesh Pandey and another). 4. Perusal of the record shows that earlier Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 4996 of 2018 (Yogesh Pandey and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) was filed before this Court challenging the chargesheet as well as the proceedings of Case No. 4912 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2018, with the direction to the present applicant to appear and surrender before the Court below and apply for bail, pursuant to which, the applicant appeared before the Court below and was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, mediation between the parties was held at District Court at Ghaziabad in which both the parties have agreed to live together peacefully as husband and wife, copy of compromise deed dated 12.11.2018 has been annexed as Annexure SCA-1 to the short counter affidavit. 5. Present second Criminal Misc. (482) Application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the Case No. 4912 of 2017 (State Vs. 5. Present second Criminal Misc. (482) Application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the Case No. 4912 of 2017 (State Vs. Yogesh Pandey and another) on the basis of compromise dated 12.11.2018. Vide order dated 30.05.2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had referred the matter before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Thereafter, mediation took place between the parties before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, where the parties had decided to re-unite and live together as husband and wife and in this regard interim settlement agreement dated 03.7.2019 was also executed and the matter was fixed for 07.08.2019 but thereafter, the dispute continued between the parties ultimately the mediation between the parties had failed as per report of the incharge Mediation Centre dated 16.10.2019. 6. When the case was listed on 19.01.2021, the counsel for the parties argued that the matter has been compromised between the parties and relying upon the statement of learned counsel for the parties, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had referred the matter to the trial Court to ascertain the veracity of the compromise pursuant to which, the parties appeared on 27.01.2021 before the court below and the said compromise was verified by the Court below vide order dated 15.02.2021, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 14.03.2021. Again the matter was listed on 05.10.2021, on which date, the learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the husband and wife are willing to live together and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2021 had directed the applicant Yogesh Pandey as well as opposite party no.2 Smt. Mamta Dubey to remain present before the Court fixing the matter for 10.11.2021. It appears that after verification of compromise and prior to 05.10.2021, some dispute again arose between the parties which was again settled on account of which, the learned counsel for the parties jointly made statement that parties are willing to live together. Considering the statement, co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the parties to remain present on 10.11.2021. It appears that after verification of compromise and prior to 05.10.2021, some dispute again arose between the parties which was again settled on account of which, the learned counsel for the parties jointly made statement that parties are willing to live together. Considering the statement, co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the parties to remain present on 10.11.2021. Thereafter, the case was listed before this Court on 10.11.2021 on which date, the husband and wife appeared before this Court and had jointly stated that they want to live together and have buried all their disputes but they had stated that the matter may again be placed on board after six months by that time, the pending cases filed against each other may be withdrawn, thus the Court had directed the matter to be listed on 11.05.2022. The parties appeared before this Court on 11.05.2022 on which date again the husband and wife had sought further three months' time to resolve all their disputes. For the said reason, the case was directed to be listed on 23.08.2022 in Chambers. 7. Today when the case was taken up in Chambers, the applicant-Yogesh Pandey (husband) and opposite party no.2 Smt. Mamta Devi (wife) are present before this Court. Both the parties have stated that this Court has granted plenty of time to resolve their disputes due to which the parties got ample opportunity to settle their differences and they have understood each other and now they have finally decided to live together. The statement of the husband-Yogesh Pandey has been recorded in a separate sheet, which is kept as a part of the record, wherein it has been stated that out of their mutual consent they have decided to live together and will withdraw all the pending cases filed by him against his wife (opposite party). Furthermore, he has stated that he will also pay Rs. 5000/-per month through R.T.G.S. to the opposite party no.2 for a period of 12 years. On the other hand, the statement of the opposite party no.2 (wife) has also been reduced in writing on a plain sheet, which is also kept as a part of the record. Furthermore, he has stated that he will also pay Rs. 5000/-per month through R.T.G.S. to the opposite party no.2 for a period of 12 years. On the other hand, the statement of the opposite party no.2 (wife) has also been reduced in writing on a plain sheet, which is also kept as a part of the record. She stated that the matter has been compromised between her and her husband and she is living with her husband since 16.11.2021, furthermore she will withdraw all the cases filed by her against the applicant and there is no dispute between the parties. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of Judgments has held that it becomes the duty of the Court in the matrimonial matters to encourage genuine settlements of the matrimonial disputes and in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and others, [ 2013 (4) ADJ 40 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the findings as laid down in the case of B.S. Joshi's case. Relevant paragraphs 12 & 13 of the judgment are reproduced herein below:- "12) In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. 13) There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders." 9. In the matter of Smt. Manbhawati Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2006)55 ACC 509, wherein initially panchayat was convened but the attempt of compromise failed but by the efflux of time parties have entered into compromise and thus this Court quashed the pending proceedings on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. 10. Following the view that efforts and encouragement should be made to resolve controversy through mediation especially in the matrimonial cases, in the instant case, the Court has devoted too much precious time and had granted accommodation to the parties in order to enable them to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute as all is well that ends well. 11. In the instant case, the compromise has been entered into between the parties and the proceedings are liable to be quashed but prior to compromise, this Court had granted ample opportunities to the parties to settle their dispute. 11. In the instant case, the compromise has been entered into between the parties and the proceedings are liable to be quashed but prior to compromise, this Court had granted ample opportunities to the parties to settle their dispute. Initially the applicant was directed to appear before Court below to apply for bail and was enlarged on bail, later on, parties entered into compromise and before the Mediation Centre at District Ghaziabad, where they have decided to live together as husband and wife but thereafter, dispute again arose and both parties started living separately. Again, they entered into compromise, which gave rise to filing of present second 482 Cr.P.C. petition in which the co-ordinate Bench had referred the matter before the mediation centre of this Court, where the parties arrived at interim settlement but that later on failed. Relying on the statement of the parties that the matter has been settled, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had sent the matter for verification of the compromise, which compromise was verified but it appears that some misunderstanding again took place between the parties and on several occasions, this Court granted accommodation to the parties, as per their whims and fancies once for six months and again for three months, enabling them to resolve their disputes as the Court considers it to be its societal duty to make attempts to repair the strained relations of husband and wife by way of amicable settlement since the marriage occupies vital role to play in the society. Ultimately, the efforts of the Court succeeded and the differences as well as plight between the husband and wife got amicably settled in terms of the compromise entered between the parties. The parties appeared before the Court and have stated that they are living happily and have no grievance against each other. Furthermore, the opposite party no.2 has stated that she has no objection in case, the proceedings are quashed by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. The proceedings of Case No. 4912 of 2017 (State Vs. Yogesh Pandey and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 0159 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad pending before learned VIIIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.