VIJAY KUMAR VERMA,J. - (1.) BY means of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), the applicants (1) Prem Shakar Pandey, (2) Sanjay Pandey, (3) Guddan (4) Rajal, (5) Sonu and (6) Smt. Siyarani have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the proceedings of criminal case no. 7144 of 2005 (State Vs. Prem Shankar Pandey and others) arising out of case crime No. 136 of 2001, under section 498A, 323, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under section 482 Cr.P.C., in brief, are that marriage of applicant no. 1 Prem Shankar Pandey and opposite party no. 2 Smt. Rubey Pandey took place on 28th June 1999, but subsequently some misunderstanding and disputes were developed between the couple, as a result of which Smt. Rubey Pandey lodged an FIR on 18.06.2001 at P.S. Mahrajpur (Kanpur Nagar), where a case under section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at crime no. 136 of 2001 against the applicants. After investigation, final report was submitted by the police. Against that final report, Smt. Rubey Pandey filed protest petition. ACMM court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 11.01.2005 summoned the accused persons to face the trial under section 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act after rejecting the final report. On the basis of that summoning order, Crl. Case No. 7144 of 2005 was registered against the applicants. During pendency of that case, the parties settled their dispute amicably in the year 2006 and in pursuance of that settlement, the applicant Prem Shankar Pandey and Smt. Rubey Pandey began to live together. As a result of the settlement entered into between the parties, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceeding of aforesaid criminal case. I have heard arguments of Sri Raghavendra Dwivedi, Advocate, appearing for the applicants, Sri Yadvendra Dwivedi, Advocate, representing the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
(3.) IT was submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no useful purpose would be served to continue the proceedings of criminal case pending in the court below, because the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the court and applicant No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 are living together peacefully. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the counter affidavit filed by O.P. No. 2 Smt. Rubey Pandey on 27.07.2009. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that although section 498A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act are not compoundable, but this Court under its inherent power can quash the proceeding of aforesaid criminal case. For this submission reliance has been placed on B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another [2003 (46) ACC 779].;