Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43664 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Arya And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi,Anjali Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Ms. Anjali Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
The opposite party no. 2 despite sufficient service, has not appeared before this Court, hence this order is being passed in her absence.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 6287 of 2016 Smt. Archana vs. Rajesh Kumar and others under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the compromise has been arrived at between the accused- applicant no. 1 who is husband of the opposite party no. 2. It is evident from the judgment dated 22.2.2019 passed in petition no. 5 of 2019 filed under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce. In the said judgment which is annexed at page 16 to 17, in which it is mentioned that the parties have compromised by mutual consent that they would get their marriage dated 19.5.2015 annulled in lieu of a sum of Rs.5.50 lacs to be paid by the accused-applicant no. 1 to the opposite party no. 2. The entire amount has already been paid as per the said judgment and it is also mentioned in the said judgment that both the parties would get their all litigations pending between them closed and a special mention has been made to complaint case no. 6287 of 2017 under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act pending in the Court of CJM, Jhansi,, complaint case no. 246 of 16 under section 12 Domestic Violation Act case no.325 of 2018 under section 125(3) Cr.PC., case no. 283 of 2016 under section 125 Cr.P.C and in other cases which might have been filed by either of them, would stand closed.
It is apparent from the said judgment that after making payment of entire money, the opposite party no. 2 has sought divorce and simultaneously closure of the above cases has been consented to by her.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Bitan Sengupta and another vs. State of West Bengal and another (2018) 18 SCC 366. Paragraph no. 7 of the said judgment is as followed.
"7. In the aforesaid circumstances and going by the spirit of the law laid down by this Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and compounded the offences. It is, more so, when the settlement between the parties, who were husband and wife, was even acted upon as the parties took mutual divorce on that basis.
Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (2003) 4 SCC 675. Paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the said judgment are as followed.
"5.After reproducing the seven categories of cases as given in para 102 of Bhajan Lal's case, the High Court has held that the parameters, principles and guidelines for quashing of complaints, first information report and criminal proceedings have been settled in terms thereof and has concluded therefrom that the instant case does not fall in any of the said categories. It is quite clear that the High Court has lost sight of the earlier part of para 102 which made it abundantly clear that the said categories of cases were being given by way of illustration. Neither the categories of cases given were exhaustive nor it could be so. Before giving those categories, it was said in Bhajan Lal's case that :
' 102 .In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.'
6. In Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], this Court with reference to Bhajan Lal's case observed that the guidelines laid therein as to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where there is more power, it becomes necessary to exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such powers."
In view of above position of law, it is apparent that in this case all the accused-applicants including husband of opposite party no. 2 and family members of accused-applicant no.1, are father- in-law, mother-in-law and other relatives of opposite party no. 2, have been made accused, therefore, looking to the fact that compromise has arrived at between the parties, it is a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings in view of law cited above.
In view of the aforesaid, criminal proceedings of complaint case no. 6287 of 2016 Smt. Archana vs. Rajesh Kumar and others under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, are hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 AU