Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Anuj Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 4327 of 2024
Decided On : 10-05-2024
QUASHING - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Section 482 Cr.P.C., Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act - The court discussed the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings when parties have reached a settlement. It emphasized that the statutory waiting period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory, allowing courts discretion to waive it under certain conditions. The court's decision was influenced by precedents that support quashing proceedings in cases of mutual consent divorce, particularly when the continuation of the case serves no useful purpose.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Anuj Pandey, sought to quash a charge sheet and subsequent orders related to a complaint filed by Saumya Dwivedi under various IPC sections and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both parties had reached an amicable settlement and filed for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had settled their disputes and did not wish to prolong the proceedings. It noted that the conditions for waiving the statutory waiting period for divorce were met, allowing for the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings based on the mutual consent of the parties and the nature of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash proceedings when the parties have settled their disputes, especially in cases where the allegations are of a private nature and do not serve the public interest to continue. The court also affirmed that the waiting period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory but directory, allowing for judicial discretion.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge sheet and related orders against Anuj Pandey and directed the Family Court to expedite the divorce proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
1. Sri Vijay Prakash Tiwari, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 by filing vakalatnama, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Devarshi Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Ms. Ankita Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 30.12.2020, cognizance and summoning order dated 27.07.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case No. 26775 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Anuj Pandey), arising out of Complaint dated 08.06.2020 filed by Respondent No. 2, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
4. Today, the applicant, namely, Anuj Pandey and the opposite party no. 2, namely, Ms. Saumya Dwivedi are present before this Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the applicant as well as the opposite party no. 2 have entered into an amicable settlement and they are ready to take divorce by mutual consent. The parties have already filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. Copy of the petition has been annexed as annexure no. 5 of the affidavit filed alongwith the instant Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The terms and conditions have also been laid down in the aforesaid petition. In Para 7 of the aforesaid petition, a condition regarding one time alimony has been mentioned. Para 7 of the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is being quoted hereunder:
^^7- ;g fd ;kph la[;k&01 }kjk ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa :i;s 70]00]000@& ¼lRRkj yk[k :i;k½ tfj;s rhu fMek.M MªkV ukfer fÁafliy tt QSfeyh dksVZ] y[kuÅ fMek.M MªkV la[;k&708388 fnukad 16-12-23 cSad vkbZŒMhŒ,QŒlhŒ cSad 'kk[kk&eqa'kh iqfy;k fMek.M MªkV la[;k&444624 fnukad&16-12-23 cSad ;wfu;u cSad 'kk[kk foHkwfr [k.M] xkserh uxj fMek.M MªkV la[;k&708309 fnukad 16-12-23 cSad&vkbZŒMhŒ,QŒlhŒ cSad 'kk[kk&eqa'kh iqfy;k ekuuh; U;k;ky; Jheku Á/kku U;k;k/kh'k th ds dks"k esa VsUMj }kjk tek fd;k tk jgk gSA mDr /kujkf'k ;kph la[;k&2 ds Hkj.k&iks"k.k o thou;kiu gsrq ;kph la[;k&1 }kjk tek dh tk jgh gS ftls ;kph la[;k&2 ;kfpdk ds fuLrkj.k ds ckn ;kfpdk ds fu.kZ; dh lR;kfir Áfr nsdj U;k;ky; Jheku Á/kku U;k;k/kh'k th ds dk;kZy; ls tfj;s psd ÁkIr dj ysxhA mijksDr rhuks fMek.M MªkV dh Nk;kÁfr o VsUMj dh dkWih mijksDr ;kfpdk ds lkFk layXud gSA**
6. Further, in Para 8 of the aforesaid petition, it has been clearly stated that apart from the above amount, now nothing remains to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 will not demand any further Stree Dhan from the applicant. Para 8 of the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is being quoted hereunder:
^^8- ;g fd ;kph la[;k&1 o ;kph la[;k&2 ds e/; fdlh Hkh Ádkj dksbZ Hkh ysu&nsu 'ks"k ugha jg x;k gS vkSj ;kph la[;k&2 Hkfo"; esa ;kph la[;k&1 ls fdlh Hkh Ádkj ds L=h/ku dh ekax ugha djsxh vkSj u gh ;kph la[;k&1 dh lEifRRk ij fdlh Hkh Ádkj ds vf/kdkj dh ekax djsxhA**
7. Learned counsel for the parties further submit that as the parties have already settled their dispute and they do not want to linger on any further, thus, the entire proceeding of the case may be quashed and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow be directed to decide the divorce petition of the parties filed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur, AIR 2017 SC 4417 and further order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal Defective No. 392 of 2019, Shalini Massey Vs. Neeraj Samuel Dass decided on 07.01.2020.
AI
The court established that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in cases of mutual consent, and that the statutory waiting period for divorce u....
The court established that mutual consent and settlement between parties can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings, and that the statutory waiting period for divorce under Section 13(B) of the....
The court may quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes if the parties have reached an amicable settlement.
Dispute is a private and personal affair. The injury sustained does not involve any mental depravity nor amounts to a heinous crime
High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the compla....
Category of offence – Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and ....
The High Court can quash non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes if the parties have mutually settled their issues, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of the court process.
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
