TEERATH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Ananya Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the respondents and perused the record.

(2.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in Case Crime No. 860 of 2007, State of U. P. v. Teerath Kumar under Section 498A/323/504/506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, (hereinafter referred to as the Magistrate). The applicant has also sought quashing of the order dated 2.5.2008, passed by the Magistrate (Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed alongwith application) and the Charge Sheet No. 27 of 2007 dated 7th May, 2007 bearing Crime No. 31 of 2007, dated 7th May, 2007 under Sections 498A and 323/504/506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D. P. Act (Annexure-2 to the affidavit).

(3.) NOW coming to the second aspect of the matter that the applicant is ready and inclined to enter into compromise with the wife and therefore, the matter should be referred to Mediation Centre, I find that even this request cannot be accepted in a routine manner, just on mere asking but there has to be material on record to show the genuineness and bona fide of the applicant that he is ready and willing to enter into settlement in matrimonial matter and further this Court must also be satisfied from the record that there is some probability or possibility of compromise or settlement between the parties. If such a prayer ex parte is accepted, it may prolong the trial before the court below and may prove to be a pretext to delay the trial by allowing a matter to trouble to extra judicial adjudicatory forum like Mediation Centre etc., without recording any finding of possibility of settlement or compromise between the parties. Any order to defer the proceedings of trial till the matter would remain pending before such extra-judicial adjudicatory forum would only cause harassment to other party and delay criminal administration of justice in the Court of Law. If the Court without recording its prima facie satisfaction on the basis of some material that there is some scope of settlement, refer the matter for mediation etc. If the applicant who has shown his intention regarding settlement or compromise has any bona fide to do so, he has to show that he has taken steps or made attempt in pursuance thereto. For example, he can show that he has written letters to the wife or her parents proposing compromise or settlement, or that he has made an application before the trial court with such a request and so on. I need not give an exhaustive list and the ways whereby such intention can be shown by the accused but atleast there has to be something on record for the satisfaction of the Court that if an attempt is made for out of Court settlement or compromise between the parties, in matrimonial matters, the same may amicably be settled. Of late, experience shows that in a very negligible number of matters the parties have arrived at settlement but in rest of the cases this approach has, infact resulted only in a huge delay in the trial which is from more than year to several years. I am fully conscious of the fact that in matrimonial matters sometimes on account of momentary passion or difference of temperament, attitude etc., some misunderstanding takes place which gets enlarged to an extent and to such a serious stage where even the criminal proceeding gets initiated by one or the other party and if an attempt is made, to settle their dispute amicably the parties may come together but in such matters the Court has to take a realistic view which may help the parties and not to victimize one of the parties at the cost of others.