- (1.) VIJAY Kumar Verma, J. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the 'cr. P. C. '), the applicants Smt. Geeta, Smt. Krishna Devi and Smt. Rekha Solanki have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, praying for quashing of the order dated 21. 7. 2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 10, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2007 (Smt. Geeta and others M. State of U. P.) and the order dated 27. 2. 2007, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad in Crl. Case No. 1923 of 2006 (State v. Onkar Singh and others), under Sections 323, 506, 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short the 'ipc') and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (in short the 'd. P. Act') of P. S. Murad Nagar (Ghaziabad ).
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , in brief, are that an FIR was lodged by Smt. Manju (Opposite Party No. 2 herein) against her husband Onkar Singh and his family members including the applicants on 7. 11. 2005 at PS. Murad Nagar District Ghaziabad, where a case under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act was registered at Crime No. 358/05. Annexure 1 is the copy of that FIR. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, on which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate concerned and the accused persons including the applicants were summoned to face the trial in Criminal Case No. 1923 of 2006. After hearing parties Counsel, the Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad passed an order on 27. 2. 2007 to frame charge against the accused under Sections 498a, 323, 506, IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act. Consequently, the charge was framed against all the accused persons on 9. 4. 2007 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5 Ghaziabad in renumbered Crl. Case No. 467 of 2007 Order dated 27. 2. 2007 was challenged by the applicants in the Court of Sessions Judge Ghaziabad by means of Crl. Revision No. 206 of 2007, which has been decided by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 10, Ghaziabad vide impugned judgment and order dated 21. 7,2007, whereby the revision has been dismissed. Both these orders have been sought to be quashed in this proceedings. I have heard Shri O. P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and also perused the material on record. None appeared for O. P. No. 2 on the day of hearing, although she had put in appearance through her Counsel Sri V. P. Mishra Advocate. At the time of admission of this case, the matter was referred to Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre vide order dated 4. 10. 2007. With the intervention of the Mediation Centre, the parties have settled their dispute and they filed compromise before the Mediation Centre on 3. 2. 2008, which is on record. According to the terms of this compromise, Smt. Manju (O. P. No. 2) has agreed-to withdraw all the cases filed by her against her husband Onkar Singh and his family members. Criminal Case No. 1923 of 2006 (State v. Onkar Singh and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, IPC and 3/4 D P. Act also is to be withdrawn in addition to other cases mentioned compromise (settlement agreement ).
(3.) DRAWING my attention towards the compromise filed by the parties before the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that continuance of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1923 of 2006 (renumbered as Crl. Case No. 467 of 2007) is not in the interest of justice and hence the entire proceedings of the case including both the impugned orders should be quashed by this Court Its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482. Cr. P. C. For this contention, reliance has been placed on the cases of 6. S, Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Ausaf Ahmad Abbasi and others v. State of U. P. and another, 2006 (30) JIC 135 (All ). Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants, I am of the opinion that continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants are net in the interest of justice. as Smt. Manju (O. P. No. 2) and her husband Onkar Singh have settled their matrimonial dispute due to intervention of the Mediation Centre and they have agreed to live together. Ali the three applicants are the family members of the husband of Smt. Manju, who have been arrayed as accused in the FIR lodged by her at case. Crime No. 358/05 at P. S Murad Nagar, on the basis of which criminal proceedings in renumbered criminal case No 467 of 2007 is pending against them. Since the matrimonial dispute has been settled amicably between Smt. Manju and her husband Onkar Singh, hence continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicants would not be in the interest of justice, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the similar circumstances the case of 8 S Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra), which has been followed by this Court the case of Ausaf Ahmad Abbasi v. State of U. P. (supra ). Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Ruchi Agarwai v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others 2005 (51) ACC 217 (SC) also, which the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the proceedings of the criminal case under Sections 498a, 323, 506, IPC and 3/4 D. P Act, due to the compromise entered into between the parties the proceedings under Section 12. 5, Cr. P. C. Following this case, this Court the case of Shikha Singh and others v. State of U. P and another, 2007 (59) ACC 123, quashed the proceedings of criminal case due to the compromise entered into between the parties. Similarly in the case of Dinesh Kumar Jain and others v. State of U. P. and others, 2007 (59) ACC 148, this Court has quashed the proceedings of the criminal case under Sections 498a, 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 D,p. Act due to the compromise entered into between the parties in the proceedings under Section 125. Cr. P. C. Reliance in this case has been placed on B. S. Joshi v State of Haryana (supra ).;