HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL C-482 NO. 1018 OF 2006 1. Jitendra Singh Neta, S/o Shri Pat Ram, 2. Pat Ram ,S/o Shri Kuda, 3. Smt. Jagwati, W/o Shri Pat Ram, 4. Rishipal, S/o Shri Pat Ram, 5. Satpal, S/o Shri Pat Ram, 6. Surendra, S/o Shri Pat Ram, 7. Jamal, S/o Shri Pat Ram, 8. Smt. Mahendri, W/o Shri Rishipal, 9. Smt. Bilkesh, W/o Shri Satpal, 10. Smt. Rajbiri, W/o Shri Jagmal Singh, All R/o Village Farashpur, Tehsil Amroha, District – J.P. Nagar (U.P.) …………Petitioners/ Applicant. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Smt. Kiran, W/o Shri Jitendra Singh Neta, D/o Shri Kirti Singh, at present residing at C- 1, Canal Colony, Near S.D. Girls Degree College, Roorkee, Tehsil Roorkee, District – Haridwar (Uttaranchal). …..Respondents/ Opp. Parties. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Raveendra Singh Bisht, counsel for the applicants and A.G.A. for the State. 2. By the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 2564 of 2006 Smt. Kiran Vs. Jitendra Singh Neta and others under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District- Haridwar. Further prayer has been made for staying further proceedings of Case No. 2564 of 2006 Smt. Kiran Vs. Jitendra Singh Neta and others under Section 406 of I.P.C. Pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District – Haridwar. 3. Briefly stated, applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 were married on 20.05.2001, but due to some dispute, both started living separately since July, 2003. 4. After leaving the matrimonial house, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District- Haridwar alleging therein that the applicants are misappropriating her Stridhan. The case was registered as Case No. 2564 of 20076 Smt. Kiran Vs. Jitendra Singh Neta and others. 5. According to the applicants, some of them have preferred Criminal Revision against the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee dated 08.04.2004 before the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which has been registered as Criminal Revision No. 410 of 2004. 6. Submission of the applicants is that during the pendency of the above noted Criminal revision, a compromise arrived among the parties and both husband and wife agreed to settle their disputes pending in various courts, subsequently, on 01.06.2006, the applicant no. 1 moved an application before the revisional Court stating therein that the revision filed by the revisionist be dismissed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 7. Vide order-dated 06.06.2006, the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar dismissed the revision in view of the application made by the applicant no. 1, however, the revisional court has maintained the summoning order passed by the trial Court. 8. Applicants have submitted that they were under impression that criminal revision as well as case pending against the applicants will be dismissed in view of the compromise and their appearance will not be required. 9. After receiving the original record from the revisional Court, the trial Court issued Non Bailable Warrant on 14.08.2006 and on 8th November, 2006 issued N.B.W. along with process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Applicants no. 1, 2 and 3 have already been acquitted from the charges framed under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dory Prohibition Act in view of the statements recorded by the respondent no. 2 and her father Shri Kirti Singh regarding compromise. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted:- ^^bl izdkj vfHk;kstu I{k dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{kh x.k ds lk{; ls ;g ckr Li"V rkSj ij fudydj vkrh gS fd izkFkhZ;k Jhefr fdj.k dk fookg vfHk;qDr ftrsUnz flag usrk ds lkFk gqvk Fkk vkSj dqN le; ckn ngst dks ysdj ifr iRuh dk vkil esa eueqVko gks tkus ds dkj.k fdj.k us vius ek;ds vkdj U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls Fkkus ij fjiksVZ fy[kk nh Fkh] ijUrq vc mudk vkil esa le>kSrk gks x;k gS rFkk fdj.k dk ftrsUnz flag usrk ls vkilh jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij rykd gks pqdk gS vkSj Lo;a fdj.k ds }kjk rFkk mlds firk dhfrZ flag }kjk vc bl okn esa dkbZ dk;Zokgh u fd;s tkus dk dFku fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa Ik=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; rFkk bl rF; dks ns[krs gq;s fd ekeyk ifr iRuh ds chp dk gS rFkk vc mudk vkil esa jktukek gks x;k gS rFkk rykd gks pqdk gS] vfHk;qDrx.k dks nks"kfl) djds nafMr fd;k tkuk U;k;skfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS] cfYd gj n`f"Vdks.k ls vfHk;qDrx.k dks nks"keqDr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ;|fi fofHkUu vfHk;kstu vfHkys[kksa dh ekSfydrk cpko I{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk Lohdkj dh x;h gS] ijUrq mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa blls vfHk;kstu Ik{k dks dksbZ ykHk ugha fey ldrk gSA bl izdkj mijksDr dh x;h lEiw.kZ foospuk ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{khx.k ds bu c;kuksa dks n`f’V esa j[krs gq;s fd I{kdkjksa dk vikl esa jkthukek gks x;k gS rFkk vc oknuh fdj.k o mlds ifjokj okys vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrs gSa] vfHk;kstu i{k dk dsl lansg ls ijs lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS vkSj ifj.kke Lo:Ik vfHk;qDrx.k ftrsUnz flag usrk] irjke vkSj Jhefr txorh yx;s x;s vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 498, Hkk0na0la0 o /kkjk 3@4 ngst izfr’ks/k vf/kfu;e ls nks’keqDr gksus ;ksX; gSA vkns”k vfHk;qDrx.k ftrsUnz flag usrk] irjke flag vkSj Jhefr txorh dks yxk;s x;s vkjksi vUrxZr /kjk 498 , Hkk0na0la0 o /kkjk 3@4 ngst izfr’ks/k vf/kfu;e ls nks’k eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDrx.k tekur ij gS muds tekur ukesa ,oa O;fDrxr ca/ki= dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk tekufr;ksa dks muds nkf;Ro ls eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA** 11. On 30.05.2006, an application regarding comprise was preferred by the parties before the Family Judge, Roorkee in Case No. 140 of 2003 Smt. Kiran Vs. Jitendra Singh Neta under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 12. Pursuant to compromise, the applicant no. 1 deposited Rs. 50,000/- as lumpsum maintenance in the court concerned and paid the balance amount of Rs. 16,000/- 13. Again on 30.05.2006, an application for compromise was preferred in Case No. 69 of 2004 Smt. Kiran V.s Jitendra Singh Neta under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent no. 2 and her father Shri Kirti Singh were examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and they accepted the compromise in their statements. 14. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants no. 2 and 3 are very old and the applicants no. 4, 5 and 6 are serving in Indian Army and applicants no. 8 and 9 are living with them. 15. Counsel for the applicants has referred B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana [2003 (2) E L C 728 (SC], where it has been observed as under : “In view of the above, discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers an quash criminal proceedings of FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code dopes not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 16. However, since the compromise as referred above was recorded in the court- below, I feel proper to remit the matter to the Magistrate concerned to decide the proceedings taking into consideration the compromise between the parties as well as on the basis of amended Section 265 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of interfering under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Biological E. Ltd and others (2000) 3 SCC 269. 17. The Magistrate concerned shall decide the case of the applicants in accordance with the compromise as well as judgment of B. S. Joshi (supra). Non- Bailable Warrant as well process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall remain in abeyance. 18. However, since the applicant 2 and 3 are aged person and the applicants no. 4, 5 and 6 are serving in Indian Army and applicants no. 8 and 9 are living with them, and the case arises out of the complaint. 19. In view of the above, since the matter arises out of the complaint case, the applicants are directed to furnish personal bonds to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned for their regular appearance in the case. 20. In view of the aforesaid, petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is disposed of. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 12.12.2006 Rathour