BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 159 of 2015 arising out of case crime no. 0291 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 495, 323, 504, 506, 109 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, District Bareilly.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 is husband and applicant no.2 is father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 (wife of applicant no.1). The marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 13.6.2012. Thereafter, on account of acrimonious relations, a matrimonial dispute arose between the parties concerned and opposite party no.2 lodged impugned FIR on 12.11.2013 against the applicants and five other accused persons, but after investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet dated 7.9.2014 against the applicants only, on which, the Magistrate concerned took cognizance on 23.3.2015. It is further submitted that after submission of the charge-sheet in this case, the parties have entered into compromise and settlement took place between them. Under the circumstances, the parties concerned moved a compromise application dated 2.5.2019 before the Judicial Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bareilly and a separate application dated 2.5.2019 was also moved with a prayer to drop the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants pursuant to compromise dated 2.5.2019, appended as Annexure No.3 to the application. It is submitted that the aforesaid compromise application dated 2.5.2019 of the applicants and opposite party no.2 has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 3.5.2019 on the ground that the offences for which, the applicants are facing trial are non-compoundable, therefore, they cannot be permitted to make compromise.