Vivek Kumar Singh, J. - Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been for quashing the proceedings of Case No.184 of 2014 (Arafat Begum v. Abdul Gaffar), pending in the Court of M.M. 4th, Kanpur Nagar, under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Beconganj, District Kanpur Nagar as well as the order dated 23/24.9.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.1741/2015 passed by M.M. 4th, Kanpur Nagar arising out of the proceedings of Case No.184/2014, under section 31 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the present case are that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 6.10.1992 in accordance with the Muslim Rites & Rituals and dowry was never demanded at the time of marriage. The opposite party no.2 moved an application application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act on 21.1.2014, before M.M. 7th Kanpur Nagar against the applicant and his family members alleging therein all sort of incorrect statement of facts, on which notices were issued to the applicant and after getting the knowledge, the applicant has approached this Court by filing Application under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 No.14652 of 2014 in which vide order dated 30.4.2014 the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. It is further submitted that due to some unavoidable circumstances the applicant could not comply with the aforesaid order dated 30.4.2014. Thereafter, learned Magistrate vide order dated 18.4.2015 had ex parte granted the maintenance to the opposite party no.2. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act before the concerned Court below, a copy of said application No.1741 of 2015 has been annexed as annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is further submitted that during the pendency of proceedings under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act good sense prevailed between the parties and after pursuation by the relative and close family friend they entered into compromise and it is agreed between the parties that the applicant will give Rs. 50,000/- as a full and final alimony to the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 will withdraw the case filed by her. Pursuant to said compromise the applicant has transferred Rs. 50,000/- on different dates in account of the opposite party no.2, receipt thereof has been annexed as annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application. It is further submitted that as per agreement between the parties, opposite party no.2 has moved an application for withdrawal of impugned proceedings before the M.M. 4th Kanpur Nagar, specifically mentioning therein that in the year 1996 divorce has taken place between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 by mutual consent and since then she is living separately having no concern with the affairs of the applicant and she does not want to continue with the aforesaid proceedings, a copy of said application has been annexed as annexure-5 and 6 to this 482 Cr.P.C. application. On application so moved by the opposite party the learned Family Court concern vide order dated 12.11.2016 has dismissed proceedings as withdrawn, so initiated by the opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 a copy of said order has been annexed as annexure-7 to this 482 Cr.P.C. application.

4. However, even after expiry of substantial time learned Magistrate has not passed any order on the withdrawal application of the opposite party no.2 then the applicant has moved an application before the M.M. 4th Kanpur Nagar on 23/24.9.2018 that the withdrawal application dated 20.8.2016 filed by the opposite party no.2 may be decided, reference in this regard has been drawn to annexure-8 to the affidavit accompanying this bail application, but without considering the fact and circumstances, in a most arbitrary manner passed the order on 23/24.9.2018 and observed that the opposite party no.2 is not pressing her application dated 20.8.2016 and due to this reason the said application was disposed of as not pressed, a copy of said application is filed as annexure-9 to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent submitted that since the application filed by the opposite party no.2 has not pressed the application filed before the concerned Court below on account of which the same was dismissed as not pressed, which is perfectly just and proper.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

7. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the factum admission of divorce in the year 1996 by the opposite party no.2 clearly demonstrate that the impugned proceedings have been launched in the year 2014 i.e. after lapse of 18 years which is the sheer abuse to the process of law. It is further submitted that the agreed amount between the applicant and opposite party no.2 has already been transferred by the applicant in the bank account of the opposite party no.2 and after filing of withdrawal application, she again proceeded further and tried to withdraw her application, which is bad in law.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court in the case of Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj & Ors. reported in 2014 LawSuit(SC) 1053 wherein it has been held that in the matrimonial dispute parties allowed to get divorce by mutual consent before family Court as directed by the Apex Court the parties had settled their dispute and the wife had remarried then the wife was estopped from continuing the proceedings.

Further in the matter of Mohd. Shamim v. Nahid Begum reported in 2005 LawSuit (SC) 37 wherein it has been held that Ex facie the settlement between the parties appears to be genuine. If the contention of the first respondent herein is to be accepted, she would not have accepted sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- and in any event, she could not have filed an appropriate application in that behalf before the Court.

Further in the matter of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal reported in 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1343 wherein it has been held that respondent/husband has given consent pursuant to compromise, even the appellant partially performed her part of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 but complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act not withdrawn, conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only harass the respondent.

9. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the opposite party no.2, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this 482 Cr.P.C. application arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion to do complete justice. While allowing this 482 Cr.P.C. application I also quash the proceedings arising out of Case No.184 of 2014 (Arafat Begum v. Abdul Gaffar), pending in the Court of M.M. 4th, Kanpur Nagar, under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Beconganj, District Kanpur Nagar as well as the order dated 23/24.9.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.1741/2015 passed by M.M. 4th, Kanpur Nagar arising out of the proceedings of Case No.184/2014, under section 31 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.