The court emphasized the necessity to quash criminal proceedings when allegations do not constitute an offence, especially in matrimonial disputes resolved amicably with mutual consent and alimony.

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of order dated 04.01.2023, as passed by learned Addl. Distt & Session Judge - I Cum Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 258/2022, Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021, where the learned court below rejected the discharge petition of the petitioners, preferred under section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

3. As per case of prosecution, the marriage of the brother of the petitioners with respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 08.03.2019 at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, within two years, the said marriage entered into rough waters and the tensions in the family escalated to such a level that, the mother-in-law of the O.P. no. 2 lodged an FIR no. 81 of2021 dated 21.02.2021 in P.S. Sushant Golf City, Lucknow, against the O.P. no. 2. Thereafter, the brother of the petitioners filed a matrimonial case seeking divorce from O.P. no. 2, vide matrimonial case number 768 of 2021, filed under section 13(1)(i)(a) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , before the court of learned Principal Judge Family Courts, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on 02.03.2021. That O.P. no. 2, in retaliation and counter blast to the aforeesaid divorce petition, filed a written complaint before the Mahila Thana, Kaimur at Bhabhua.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that matter appears compromised between the parties against the permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh). In this context, it is submitted that marriage of parties also stands dissolved by way of mutual divorce through Matrimonial Suit No. 30 of 2025 dated 27.01.2025, where by the judgment of learned Principal Judge cum, Family Court, Kaimur (Bhabhua), the marriage between the parties declared dissolved. It is submitted that from the said judgment it transpires that O.P. No. 2 already received permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh) and in aforesaid fact, continuing of the present proceedings before court below would only amount to abuse of the process of the Court of law and, therefore, same be quashed/set aside. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.

5. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 also supported the submission as advanced by learned counsel for petitioner that the parties resolved their dispute and differences, amicably.

6. In view of aforesaid, it would be apposite to reproduce Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek case (supra), which read as:-

12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to