AMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), the applicants (1) Amit Kumar, (2) Smt. Mahendri, (3) Smt. Savita, (4) Smt Rajnees, (5) Smt. Mamchandra, (6) Amrish, (7) Rajesh and (8) Suneel have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 (State v. Amit Kumar and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime No. 242 of 2008, P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut,

(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 Amit Kumar and opposite party No.2 Smt. Aadesh Kumari took place on 6.3.2006, but subsequently some misunderstanding and disputes were developed between the . couple, as a result of which Smt. Aadesh Kumari lodged an FIR against the applicants at P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut on 24.2.2008, where a case under Section 498-A, 323,504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at crime No. 242 of 2008, After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants, on which cognizance has been taken and on the basis of that chargesheet, criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 was registered against the applicants, which is pending in the Court of Chief Juidical Magistrate, Meerut. An application for granting maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was also moved by opposite party No. 2 Smt. Aadesh Kumari against her husband Amit Kumar (applicant No. 1) in Family Court, Meeurt, which was registered as case No. 44 of 2009. During the pendency of these cases, due to intervention of some well-wishers and relatives, the parties settled their dispute, in consequence whereof the applicant No. 1 paid Rs. 1,00,000/ to Smt. Aadesh Kumari as lumpsum maintenance, on the basis of which, the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been rejected vide order dated 23.8.2009 (annexure-5) passed by the Family Court, Meerut. As a result of the compromise entered into between the parties, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceeding of criminal case referred in para (1) above.

(3.) I have heard arguments of Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State of U.P.