Friday, March 29, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Allahabad HC rules trial in matrimonial disputes can’t end with compromise if it involves serious offence

The Allahabad High Court has held that in personal disputes like matrimonial conflicts, the trial can be terminated if there is a settlement between parties, but where the offence is serious in nature, the trial cannot be terminated on the same grounds.

A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra heard the application under Section 482 CrPC filed by Varun Pershad and 2 others.

The application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Criminal Case under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 DP Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Agra pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D) FTC 1 st, Agra in the light of compromise so entered into between the parties on 7.10.2021.

The application came up for admission on 5.3.2022 and the Court passed the following order;

“Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard the counsel for the applicants, Rajesh Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Alok Singh, counsel for opposite party no 2 and A.G.A for the State.

The present 482 CrPC application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Agra, pending in the court of Civil Judge, (J.D.)/F.T.C 1st Agra, in the light of the compromise deed dated 07.01.2021, with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

Rajesh Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Alok Singh, counsel for opposite party no 2 states that the compromise has taken place between the parties and in respect thereof, he has annexed a compromise deed endorsed as Annexure – 4 to the petition.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court below on 22.03.2022 and file their compromise application. The court below is directed to ensure to pass an order on the said compromise application and all formalities completed within ten days from that date. The concerned Magistrate will send a report to the Court whether the said compromise took place or not.

List this case on 04.04.2022, along with the report regarding compromise.

In the meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.”

The Court noted,

Subsequent to the above order dated 5.3.2022, parties appeared before the Court below for verification of compromise. Same was verified by the parties before the Court. Accordingly, the Court below passed the order dated 22.3.2022, whereby said compromise stood verified. The Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, has submitted his report dated 22.3.2022 to this Court stating therein that compromise entered between the parties by means of compromise deed dated 7.10.2021 has been verified.

Counsel for applicants thus contends that dispute between parties is a purely private dispute. Moreover, dispute between parties is of matrimonial nature. During pendency of this application, parties have amicably settled their dispute. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between parties, a compromise dated 30.5.2022 was filed before Court below which has been verified by the Court below. As such, compromise entered into by parties has been acted upon and also verified by the Court.

On the aforesaid premise, it is urged by the counsel for applicant that once parties have entered into a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case. Interest of justice shall better be served, in case, entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, instead of relegating the parties to Court below.

Additional Government Advocate does not oppose the application. He contends that dispute between parties is basically a matrimonial dispute. Parties have already compromised which has also been acted upon and verified by Court below. As such, no ground exists to continue the prosecution of applicants.

Counsel for opposite party No 2 has also supported the prayer made by the counsel for the applicant.

It is contended by the counsel for first informant/opposite party-2 that once first informant/opposite party-2 has herself compromised with accused applicants, then in that eventuality, she cannot have any objection, in case entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case are quashed by the Court.

He has further invited attention of the Court to the averments made in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 482 CrPC, wherein the factum of compromise entered into by parties and its consequential verification by the lower court have been duly pleaded.

spot_img

News Update