- (1.) A quadruple close relatives applicants Jitendra Pal Singh @ Pappu (A1) Tavindar Singh(A2), Seva Singh(A3) and Smt. Satnam Kaur (A4) have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this court with the prayer that proceeding of State versus Jitendra Pal Singh, under sections 307/392/504/506 IPC, pending before Special Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar be quashed. Their Subsidiary prayer is for stay of the aforesaid proceedings pendente lite this Application in this court.
(2.) Briefly stated background facts are that one Jyoti Deep Kaur @ Ruchi and Seva Singh (A3) are sibling brother and sister and Satnam Kaur(A4) is their mother. Jitendra Pal Singh @ Pappu (A1) is brother -in- law of A3 and Tavindar Singh (A2) is his another brother-in-law (Sister's husband/Bahnoi) of A3. Jyoti Deep Kaur is the daughter in law of respondent no. 2 Darshan Singh being wife of his son Manmeet Singh. Thus all the applicants and respondent no. 2 stand in close relationship with each other. It seems that a dispute arose between Jyoti Deep Kaur and her husband Manmeet Singh. Motivated because of the dispute on 31.10.2007 at 5.30 a.m., respondent No.2 accompanied with his son Gurdeep Singh was proceeding towards chowk Gurudwara on a scooter and when they reached hospital road then applicants, who were armed with fire arms, blocked their way by their Maruti car and forced them to have a conversation with them. Respondent No.2 forbade by telling them that after his return from Gurudwara that the conversation will take place. A1 and A3 started intimidating and at the instigation of A4 both of them shot at respondent No.2. Fire made by A1 caused injury in the arm of respondent 2 but shot fired by A1 went in air. A2 snatched the bag from respondent no. 2 containing Rs. Two thousand five hundred and some important documents. Accused thereafter escaped from the spot hurling abuses and intimidating. Since FIR of respondent No. 2 was not registered , therefore he invoked the power of Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by moving an application seeking his direction for the police to register his FIR. It transpires that under the order of the court that FIR( Annexure 1) of respondent no. 2 being 307/392/504/506 IPC was registered at PS Kotwali District Kanpur Nagar. Investigation into the crime finally resulted in submission of a FR vide annexure no. 2 on 4.2.08. Respondent No. 2 consequently laid a protest petition. Special CJM, Kanpur Nagar vide his order dated 14.7.2008 allowed the protest petition, rejected the FR and summoned all the applicants under sections 307/392/504/506 IPC by registering against the applicants. Perusal of the record further reveals that interregnum, both the contesting sides reached an accord on 21.8.2008 vide annexure no. 4 to this Application, which contains signature of all the applicants and respondent no. 2. Though this accord was inked on 11.8.2008 but the same was got verified on 21.8.2008. A compromise between the couple was also arrived at vide Annexure no. 7 to this Application which was also got verified on 9.1.2008. On the basis of the said compromise proceeding of 323/504/506/498A IPC instituted against the son of respondent No. 2 and others by the wife Jyoti Deep Kaur, was quashed by this court in , Manmit Singh @ Prince And Others versus State of U.P. And Another, on 15.5.2008 vide annexure no. 8 to this application. Under the terms of the agreement even the marriage between the spouses stood dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent U/S 13 (b) of Hindu Marriage Act, by Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, on 7.7.2008 vide annexure no. 9 to this Application. It was in the backdrop of preceding facts that the applicants have filed instant Criminal Misc Application invoking inherent power of this court to get their prosecution also quashed as some of the offences against them are not compoundable and both the parties do not want to go through the arduous criminal trial procedure.
(3.) At the time of admission itself Sri Sanjiv Pandey advocate appeared for respondent no. 2 informant and both counsel for the applicants and Sri Pandey in one voice harangued the same submission that the proceeding be quashed looking to the relationship between the parties and the agreement arrived at between them. They submitted that from the facts no offence under section 307 IPC is made out and the offence will not travel outside the purview of section 324 IPC and so far as offence of robbery is concerned the same is also not made out because there was no intention to commit theft by the accused. Snatching was an individual act of one of the accused and since parties have come to terms they should be allowed to live their own lives. It was submitted that in fact the dispute was in the nature of a family feud and the reasoning of apex court in the case of B.S. Joshi and another versus State of Haryana and another, 2003 4 SCC 675 be imported to apply in the instant case and prosecution be quashed. It was further submitted that the prosecution of the other side already stood quashed and therefore no useful purpose will be served to allow the trial to proceed as that will amount to only wastage of time of the court without yielding any fruitful result. It was next submitted that divorce has already taken place and both the spouses are living their own lives separately and therefore parties should not be compelled to litigate against their own wishes especially when the other side is reaping the benefit of closer of their trial. They concluded that to save the precious time of the court and harassment of the litigating parties prosecution of the applicants be quashed as trial will only increase bickering between the parties which will not be in consonance with interest of justice.;