- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Dinesh Kumar Jain, Smt. Kanta Jain and Umesh Kumar Jain, with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 728/10/2004, Smt. Gunjan Jain v. Dinesh Kumar Jail and Anr. , pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506, I. P. C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that O. P. No. 2 Smt. Gujan Jain, the wife of applicant Dinesh Kumar Jain, filed a complaint against the applicant in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. Sadar Mathura vide complaint case No. 728/10/2004 on 9-4-2004 in which the applicants have been summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506, I. P. C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act. THE O. P. No. 2 has also filed the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. In the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathura vide case No. 394 of 2005. The applicant Dinesh Kumar Jain, and O. P. No. 2 Smt. Gunjan Jain filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 (B) (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/room No. 215 Second Flour 30 Hazari Court, New Delhi, the same was allowed and the marriage between the applicant Dinesh Kumar Jain and O. P. No. 2 Smt. Gunjan Jain was dissolved by a decree of divorce in terms of Section 13 (B) (2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 20-9-2006. An application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathura being numbered 389 of 2005 has also been decided in terms of compromise between applicant No. 1 and O. P. No. 2. Applicant No. 1 and O. P. No. 2 have entered into a compromise and with their free consent their marriage has been dissolved and they have decided not to proceed further in any case pending between them. By virtue of the compromise entered into between applicant No. 1 and O. P. No. 2 it was argued that the applicant shall pay a sum of Rs. 6,35,000/- to O. P. No. 2 and all the cases pending between the parties shall be withdrawn inter se and the decree for divorce by mutual consent shall be passed and on the basis of the above mentioned compromise case No. 389/05 under Section 125, Cr. P. C. has been decided on 21-8-2006 and the marriage was also dissolved by a decree of divorce on 20-9-2006 vide marriage petition No. 393 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The applicant has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 by way of Bank Draft. Remaining amount of Rs. 1,35,000 had been deposited before this Court on 14-5-2007 in which Bank Draft No. 20184 and Bank Draft No. 91899 of Rs. 10,000 has also been deposited as expenses. Both the Bank Drafts have been handed over to O. P. No. 2 Smt. Gujnaj Jain. Smt. Gujnaj Jain orally stated before this Court that she does not want to prosecute the applicants in complaint case No. 728/10/06 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506, I. P. C. and Sections 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court if learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. Heard Sri A. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Sri Kailash Prasad Pandey, learned Counsel for O. P. No. 2.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Counsel for O. P. No. 2 that both the parties have entered into a compromise and their marriage had been divorced with mutual consent and O. P. No. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicant, in such circumstances the prosecution of the applicants shall not serve any purpose because O. P. No. 2 shall not support the prosecution version ultimately it would be resulted in acquittal. Therefore, the proceedings of the present case may be quashed. Considering the statement made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for O. P. No. 2 and considering other facts and circumstance of the case and considering the fact that it is a case in relation to matrimonial dispute, marriage has been dissolved with mutual consent and other litigations have also been decided in terms of compromise in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. , (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in exercise of the power conferred under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and to meet the ends of justice, it is necessary that the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 728/10/2004 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Sadar Mathura under Sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506, I. P. C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, may be quashed.;