Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Deepak Verma, J.
Vidyadhar Singh And Ors. – Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. And Anr. – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. - 41730 of 2018
Decided On : 23-11-2020
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 506, 498-A – D.P. Act – Sections 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 482, 200, 202 – Quashment of the Complaint Case – Present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the Complaint Case under Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, as well as impugned summoning order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra –
Finding of the Court:
Object of criminal law is primarily to visit the offender with certain consequences – He may be made to suffer punishment or by paying compensation to the victim, but the law at the same time also provides that it may not be necessary in every criminal offence to mete out punishment, particularly, if the parties concerned wants to bury the hatchet. – If they want to move on in a matrimonial dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement. – After compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicant to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. – The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. – Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the end of justice. – In view of above interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end. –
Result: Application Allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the Complaint Case No.1172 of 2018 (Nisha Singh vs. Vidyadhar Singh and others), under Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, as well as impugned summoning order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.
3. It is germane to give actual facts regarding case. On 16.06.2017 opposite party No.2 filed complaint against the applicants and three other persons alleging therein that before marriage applicants came to parental house for solemnizing matrimonial ceremonies and that time demanded Rs.2 lacs dowry from her father and threatened them that if they did not fulfil the demand then applicant No.1 will not marriage her, thereafter some relatives intervened then applicant ready for marriage on condition that after marriage they would give Rs.2 lacs thereafter marriage was solemnize on 17.02.2016 and complainant went to her in-laws house, when father of complainant could not fulfil the demand of Rs.2 lacs they started torture and cruelty against her. Complainant told about cruelty of applicant to her father, complainant’s father came and convinced them but they did not agree and continued threatening and tortured the complainant. At last on 27.06.2016 they beaten and threatened her and thrown her out of house. Complainant filed complaint against the applicant and Magistrate after taking statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act on 20.09.2018. Applicant by way of aforesaid 482 Application challenged the complaint case as well as summoning order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), FTC/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra on the ground that entire allegations of case are baseless, false and concocted and no occurrence was taken place. No injury caused to opposite party No.2 but due to false implication and undue harassment, the opposite party No.2 taken false and fabricated stand in order to harass and humiliate the applicant. He further submitted that opposite party No.2 is a married lady and lived in a modern style and she dislike the living style of the applicants whereas the applicant No.1 always wants to keep opposite party No.2 with him and lead a happy marriage life with her with full honour and dignity but due to aggressive and non co-operative attitude of opposite party no.2, the Applicant No.1 filed Case No.274 of 2017 against opposite party No.2 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi which was decreed in favour of applicant No.1 on 15.09.2017. He further submitted that cause of action of the present case arose in District Ranchi, Jharkhand and in view of Hon’ble Apex Court law laid down in case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464 (SC). The aforesaid complaint case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction and further impugned order as well as proceedings are arbitrary and mala fide and not supported by documentary evidence.
4. This Court on 20.11.2018 passed the following order:
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the husband as well as entire family members of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
