MUKTI PRABHA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. P. Sahi, J. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the orders passed by the Courts below in respect ot recall of the witnesses as ordered under section 311 Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE dispute is linked with a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No. 4 Manoj Sharma and respondent No. 2 Neelam Sharma. THEir marriage ran into rough weather as a result whereof a divorce suit was filed by the petitioner No. 4 being suit No. 103 of 2007 which is stated to be pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. Proceedings under section 125 Cr. P. C. were initiated by the respondent No. 2 which were also engaging the attention of the same Court and which has given rise to Criminal Revision No. 1017 of 2007. THE record of Criminal Revision No. 1017 of 2007 has also been summoned by me today. Apart from this, two criminal cases have been instituted by the opposite party No. 2 which are numbered as Criminal Case No. 3272 of 2004 and 1558 of 2007 stated to be pending before the Court of learned A. C. J. M, VI, Jhansi.

(3.) SRI Sudamaji Shandilya, according to the terms of the compromise, has produced a bank draft dated 11. 1. 2008 drawn in favour of the respondent No. 2 which has been issued by the Allahabad Bank at Jhansi. The said bank draft has been handed over to the respondent No. 2 Neelam Sharma who has been identified by her Counsel SRI S. N. Tripathi. According the terms of the said compromise, all proceedings have to be terminated and the divorce suit has to be decreed. Needless to say that this prayer with the consent of the parties, can be given effect to in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as ruled by the Apex Court. Reference maybe had to the following decision: 1. Commissioner of Endowments v. Vit-tal Rai and others, AIR 2005 SC 454. 2. K. Venkatachala Bhat v. Krishna Nayak, 2005 (59) ALR 294 (SC) = 2005 (28) AIC 28 (SC ). 3. Commissioner of Endowments v. Vittal Rai and others. 2005 (4) SCC 120. Having perused the memo of compromise, and the joint application moved by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, the proceedings of criminal case No. 3272 of 2004 and 1558 of 2007 pending before the learned A. C. J. M. , Court No. VI, Jhansi, are hereby quashed. The revision petition No. 1017 of 2007 filed by respondent No. 2 shall also stand consigned to records. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has given an undertaking before the Court that the divorce suit pending before the Principal Judge Family Court, Jhansi being suit No. 103 of 2007 Manoj Sharma v. Neelam Sharma may be decreed to which she will have no objection. This is being done in view of the powers to be exercisable by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction as held by the Apex Court in the case of B. S Joshi v. State of Haryana. 2003 (46) ACC 779 (SC) = 2003 (51) ALR 222 = 2003 (5) AIC 42 (SC ).