Surendra Singh - (1.) BY the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court praying for direction to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi to conclude the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 439 of 2005, State v. Hafiz Iqbal Ahmad and others under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of P.S. Karari, District Kaushambi arising out of Case Crime No. C-4 of 2005 in terms of compromise within stipulated period.
(2.) THE allegations in brief were that opposite party No. 2 Smt. Nushrat Khursheed daughter of Salahuddin was married with applicant No. 1 Hafiz lqbal Ahmad according to the Muslim rites on 29.5.2000, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for want of a motorcycle and Rs. 50,000 for business purposes by the applicant and his family members after marriage. It is alleged that on the date and time of the incident she was beaten and was turned out from their house on account of non-fulfilment of the alleged demand. In order to settle the dispute, a Panchayat was convened but the attempt of compromise could not be materialized. THEreafter on the basis of said allegations the F.I.R. was registered in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in exercise of power conferred under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. The police after usual investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the applicants under the aforesaid sections in the concerned court of Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence against all the applicants who are husband, father-in-law, nanad and dewar of the deceased respectively. After some gap of time the informant as well as the charge-sheeted accused persons settling their differences, came to terms and entered into a compromise with the help of some respectable persons out of Court and now the dispute has been set at rest between the parties as both of them have entered into compromise. An application was filed before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Kaushambi jointly by both applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 on 26.10.2007 praying for deciding Case No. 439 of 2005 in terms of compromise. The said application is still pending for disposal. I have heard Sri Mohd. Farooq, advocate on behalf of the applicants and Sri C. B. Mishra, advocate appearing for opposite party No. 2, who has filed counter-affidavit which is taken on record as well as the learned A.G.A. at a great length and perused the material placed on record.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants urged that since it is a case of matrimonial dispute and the parties have come to a compromise, therefore, no useful purpose will be served to drag both the parties to the Court for the purposes of completing the formalities of the case. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice that a suitable direction be given to the Court concerned to decide/conclude the proceedings against the applicants in terms of compromise between the parties expeditiously without unreasonable delay. The opposite party has not disputed the factum of compromise in the affidavit filed on her behalf. I find that the matter relates to a matrimonial dispute on account of petty matter and both of them have settled their dispute and entered into a compromise and they do not want to further proceed in the matter. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction, therefore, it would not be proper to decline the exercise of power for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the offence is not compoundable.;