- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A. G. A. and the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The petition can be finally disposed of at this stage on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case mentioned and enumerated in two separate applica tions moved by the petitioner and the op posite party No. 2.
(2.) INITIALLY this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was filed in which the prayer was for questing the proceedings in crime case No. 780 of 1989 corresponding to new no. 373 of 1990: (State v. Rahul Agrawal) pend ing in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly which arose out of the FIR, dated 28- 6-89 and charge-sheet dated 21-7-1989. The same prayer has been re- integrated in the subsequent application of the petitioner. In para 3 of the affidavit accom panying this application it is mentioned that marital relations between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 stand dissolved by a decree of divorce granted by the com petent Court in the year 1992 and the op -. posite party No. 2 had voluntarily given the custody of only minor sons born out of wed lock to the deponent in 1992. The matter of maintenance etc. also stood disposed of be tween the parties and now no other dispute exists, except the only criminal proceedings between the parties. The opposite party No. 2 in her affidavit along with subsequent ap plication had admitted this fact in paras 2 and 3. On the basis of these two affidavits the factual position emerges that the marittal relations between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 have come to an end and all the disputes between them regarding maintenance, custody of child etc. has been settled and no other dispute between them is pending except the criminal case men tioned in this petition. The question is whether on these subsequent events the proceedings should be quashed or not. No direct authority of the Court on this point could be cited by the leaned counsel for the petitioner. However, he cited three cases of Punjab and Haryana High Court. In Yashpal Saini and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1996 (1) D. M. C. 463 on similar facts where matrimonial tie between the husband and wife ended through a decree of divorce and all disputes were settled emicably. It was held that it is in the interest of family and society that criminal proceedings under Sections 106/498-A may well be quashed. It was fur ther held that one such a settlement has been arrived at, it is patent that it is good for the Society that all disputes ended up amicably and no useful purpose would be served by allowing the parties to enter into agony of long trial which may not succeed. In Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab and others 1994 (1), 501 again where the marriage between the parties was dissolved by decree for divorce and all the matters were settled amicably, it was held that be cause there was no desire to pursue the proceedings and also because it is in the greater interest of justice if criminal proceedings are quashed.
(3.) THE same view has been taken in Nirlape Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1993 (3) Crimes 922. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case and the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the above three cases, it is just and expedient that the petition be allowed and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 780 of 1989 having new No. 373 of 1990; State v. Rahul Agrawal and others, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilty be quashed and is hereby quashed. Stay order is vacated. Petition allowed. .;