Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14129 of 2017 Applicant :- Rishabh Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kripa Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Pandey
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed today. Taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Kripa Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri Satyendra Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 20.02.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 6213 of 2016 (Awantika Gupta @ Anju Gupta Vs. Rishabh Gupta & Ors.), under Sections- 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section- 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Collectorganj, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge-II (Sr. Div.)/Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case had been lodged against the applicant no.1 and his family members but that neither there was any criminal intent on part of any party nor any criminal offence had actually occurred.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that:-
(i) though the dispute between the parties was purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties;
(ii) the complaint came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;
(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos;
(v) the parties have dissolved their marriage. The marriage having been dissolved through a decree of Family Court, Kanpur Nagar dated 08.10.2018 in Divorce Petition No.573 of 2018;
(vi) further, the applicant no.1 has paid to opposite party no. 2, Rs.1,80,000/- towards full and final settlement of all her money claim against that applicant for alimony or otherwise;
(vii) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.
6. In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto bitterly estranged couple and their families.
7. Sri Satyendra Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.
8. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being a matrimonial dispute that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing such a prosecution to proceed any further.
9. Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
10. The present application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Abhilash