Ram Babu Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 January, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Ram Babu Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 January, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7357
 
Court No. - 64
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19719 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Babu Gupta And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akash Chandra Maurya,G.A.
 
and 
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2386 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Ajeet Gupta And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Kumar Tiwari,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
 

1-Vide order of this Court dated 22.08.2024, notice was issued to opposite party no. 2-Smt. Neetu Gupta through Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned and as per office report dated 12.12.2024, notice has been served upon the opposite party no. 2 through her father but no one has put in appearance on her behalf, therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the matter.

2-Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State in both the above matters. They are being decided together.

3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the applicants of Application U/s 482 No. 19719 of 2018, namely, Ram Babu Gupta and Smt. Mithilesh Gupta are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2-Smt. Neetu Gupta. The applicants of Application U/s 482 No. 2386 of 2020, namely, Ajeet Gupta, Ram Babu Gupta and Smt. Mithilesh are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2.

4-The marriage of opposite party no. 2-Neetu Gupta with Ajeet Gupta was solemnized on 12.12.2014 but on account of acrimonious relation, their marriage was not successful, as a result thereof, opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report on 16.06.2017 registered at Case Crime No. 0516 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376, 313 and 120-B I.P.C. against Ram Babu Gupta, Smt. Mithilesh Gupta and Anurag Gupta, in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 29.12.2017 under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. against Ram Babu and Smt. Mithilesh Gupta whereas charge-sheet under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 and 313 I.P.C. has been submitted against Anurag Gupta, on which the concerned court below took cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial. Thereafter the applicants have preferred the instant Application U/s 482 No. 19719 of 2018, in which further proceedings of the trial court so far as the applicants are concerned was stayed vide interim order dated 30.05.2018.

5-On 01.06.2018, opposite party no. 2-NeetuGupta has also lodged another first information report against her husband and his family members namely Ajeet Gupta, Ram Babu Gupta, Smt. Mithilesh, Sanjeet Gupta and Smt. Deepti for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 11.07.2019 only against Ajeet Gupta, Ram Babu Gupta and Smt. Mithlesh, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 31.07.2019 and summoned the accused persons to face trial. Thereafter, Ajeet Gupta, Ram Babu Gupta and Smt. Mithilesh Gupta have again preferred an Application U/s 482 No. 2386 of 2020, in which vide order dated 17.01.2020, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre but the mediation between the parties concerned, has failed on 18.11.2021.

6-The opposite party no. 2 has also preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided vide order dated 11.04.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra in Criminal Case No. 202 of 2017 (Smt. Neetu Gupta vs. Sri Ajeet Gupta). Thereafter, Ajeet Gupta (husband of opposite party no. 2) has preferred a Criminal Revision No. 3394 of 2023, in which the aforesaid order dated 11.04.2019 was quashed vide order dated 17.11.2023 on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties concerned.

7-Ajeet Gupta (husband of opposite party no. 2) and Smt. Neetu Gupta (opposite party no. 2) have also jointly preferred a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act which was registered as Matrimonial Case No. 2680 of 2023 and the said petition has been allowed vide order dated 19.04.2024 and the marriage of Ajeet Gupta and Smt. Neetu Gupta dated 12.12.2014 has been dissolved by decree of divorce.

8-In the light of aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since compromise, decree of divorce by mutual consent of the parties concerned has been passed, therefore, criminal proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed.

9-Learned A.G.A. submits that after decree of divorce, the interest of opposite party no. 2 has lost, therefore, it might be possible that she has not come to pursue this case.

10-Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as noted above, I find that after compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned wants to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in personal dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of conviction gets lost.

11-The Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and Ramgopal and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 Supreme (SC) 529 after wholesome treatment has laid down guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of non-compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise, wherein quashing of proceeding of criminal cases which involved non compoundable offences has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is private in nature and does not have a serious impact on society.

12-Considering the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court as mentioned above, I find that the case in hand does not have grave and wider social ramifications and the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties, therefore, this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the end of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of applicants is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end.

13-In view of the above, the proceedings of Case No. 8650 of 2018 (State vs. Ram Babu Gupta and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 516 of 2017, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. against the applicants namely Ram Babu Gupta and Smt. Mithilesh Gupta and proceedings of Case No. 305 of 2019 (State vs. Ajeet Gupta) arising out of Case Crime No. 70 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act as well as cognizance order dated 31.07.2019 against the applicants namely Ajeet Gupta, Ram Babu Gupta and Smt. Mithilesh are hereby quashed.

14-The aforesaid applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed.

Order Date :- 16.1.2025

Saurabh