S.C.AGARWAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rajendra Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 did not appear when the case was taken up for hearing.
(3.) THIS application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 108 of 2005 dated 9.11.2005 in case crime No. 206 of 2005 under Sections 498 -A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Link Road, District Ghaziabad (State v. Sanjeev Kumar Dikshit) pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.G.I., Ghaziabad. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite party No. 2 were husband and wife. A divorce petition was filed by opposite party No. 2 and applicant jointly under Section 13 -B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of District Sessions Judge, East, District Karkardooma Court, Delhi being petition No. 288 of 2009. In the said petition, the matter was referred for mediation and ultimately parties came to terms and a settlement agreement was executed on 18.4.2009. On the basis of compromise, the divorce petition was decreed. The certified copies of the settlement agreement as well as judgment in the divorce petition have been filed as S.A. -1. to the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the application. 5. In the said settlement agreement, it was agreed that the parties shall file the petition before this Court at Allahabad for quashing the F.I.R. No. 206 of 2005 under Sections 406, 498, 323, 504, 506/34 IPC, P.S. Link Road, District Ghaziabad. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the proceeding pending before the Magistrate be quashed. 6. Section 498A IPC is not compoundable, however, the Apex Court in the case of 'Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab' reported as : (2008) 4 SCC 582 emphasised in para No. 6 as follows: 6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. 7. The instant dispute, being a matrimonial dispute, is of a purely personal nature. With the intervention of the Mediation Centre at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, parties came to terms and in pursuance of the compromise, decree of divorce has already been passed by the competent civil court. 8. Opposite party No. 2 does not wish to proceed with the criminal case initiated by her against the applicant. In these circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed. Application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. The entire proceedings of case crime No. 206 of 2005 under Sections 498 -A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Link Road, District Ghaziabad (State v. Sanjeev Kumar Dikshit) pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.G.I., Ghaziabad are quashed.;