AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. K. Mittal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants.
Sri D.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has also put in appearance. Keep his appearance slip on record.
Learned Counsel for the applicants has contended that in this matter parties have compromised and divorce has also taken place by mutual consent. He has further contended that compromise, which are papers Annexures 10 and 11, was filed in the Court but the learned Magistrate did not verify the compromise and by order dated 30th June, 2005 has directed for issuing nonbailable warrant against the accusedapplicants. Learned Counsel for the complainantopposite party No. 2 has also conceded that the matter has been compromised between the parties.
The learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the case law reported in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2003 SCC (Crl.) 848, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that in the matrimonial cases it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and if in the case of the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak, in such cases quashing of criminal proceedings is permissible.
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as above, when in this case divorce has already taken place and the parties have filed compromise, the Magistrate should have verified the compromise and no useful purpose is likely to be served by sending back the case to the Court below for verification of the compromise. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. therefore, deserves to be allowed.
In the result the application succeeds and is allowed. Criminal proceedings in Case No. 5937 of 2005, Richa Sharma v. Akinchan Sharma, (Case Crime No. 55 of 2002) under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila District Moradabad pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate are hereby quashed.
Application allowed