Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 369 (ALL)

MUKUL KUMAR v. DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

2001-04-18

R.D.SHUKLA, S.H.A.RAZA

body2001
S. H. A. RAZA, J. ( 1 ) WE have perused the F. I. R. of Case Crime No. 47/1998 under Section 498-A (34) which was registered at Jabalpur. The F. I. R. discloses the alleged cruelty was perpetuated against the informant at Lucknow. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the averments made in the F. I. R. , marriage of the informant Ritcha Kumar and mukul Kumar was solemnized. The alleged cruelty was perpetuated by the petitioner and his in laws against the informant at Lucknow. Demand of dowry was alleged by the petitioner and his in-laws of the informant at Lucknow. A petition for divorce was also filed at Faridabad by the petitioners under the Hindu Marriage Act, where they last resided altogether. The former wife of the petitioner, Ms. Ritcha Kumar filed a transfer application of the case bearing No. 41/ 1999 before Honble the Supreme Court. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the said transfer application, the parties compromised, as a result of which, Honble the Supreme Court passed the following order on September 13, 1999. "the parties are present in person. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that parties have decided to mutually resolve their disputes and to approach the appropriate Court for grant of divorce by mutual consent. They submit that an application shall be filed in the appropriate Forum in that behalf, together with all the documents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks to withdraw the petition. We record the statement of the learned Counsel and dismiss the transfer petition as withdrawn. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the compromise deed, which has been placed on record, is permitted to be returned to them for presentation before the appropriate Forum. " ( 4 ) IN the Court of Faridabad a compromise was filed along with the order of Honble Supreme court, where a joint statement was made by the parties which is reproduced below : "we have compromised the matter. In accordance with the compromise, a draft for Rs. 2,51,000/- bearing No. 1422890/185/99 dated 13. 8. 1999 drawn on Uttar Pradesh Cooperative bank Ltd. , Lucknow has been given to Ritcha Kumar. This has been done in compliance with the compromise dated 16. 8. 1999 filed before the Supreme Court, the original of which has been filed by Ritcha Kumar in this Court which is Ex. PX. 2,51,000/- bearing No. 1422890/185/99 dated 13. 8. 1999 drawn on Uttar Pradesh Cooperative bank Ltd. , Lucknow has been given to Ritcha Kumar. This has been done in compliance with the compromise dated 16. 8. 1999 filed before the Supreme Court, the original of which has been filed by Ritcha Kumar in this Court which is Ex. PX. The list of articles is Ex. PQ and as per which all the ornaments have been handed over to Ritcha Kumar just today vide receipt. However, the articles mentioned overleaf Ex. PQ i. e. one Onida Colour T. V. , one Fridge Godrej, one Godrej almirah, and two teak wood beds would be delivered on some next date as per convenience of both the parties. For the last more than one year we are living separately. We have tried our best to adjust and live together but we have failed. However, there is no other alternative but to separate by a decree of divorce. We have given an undertaking in writing today in Court that we abide by it. It has become impossible for us to live together as husband and wife. Under the compromise the son Amogh aged 3 years shall remain with Ritcha Kumar and shall not be the responsibility of Mukul Kumar. More so, Amogh (son) shall continue to live with Ritcha Kumar for good and Mukul Kumar shall not have any connection or contact with Ritcha Kumar or Amogh in future. No amount is payable in future. Amogh shall have no right or interest in the property of Mukul kumar. In future, Ritcha Kumar will have no claim. No amount is payable in future to Ritcha kumar on account of permanent alimony and maintenance. All cases pending before any Court or Authority shall be dismissed as withdrawn. " ( 5 ) IT is evident from the order passed by the Additional District judge, Faridabad that on 27. 5. 2000, Ritcha Kumar also made a statement, which was separately recorded to the effect that she had received one Onida Colour T. V. , one Godrej double door Refrigerator, one Godrej store-well Almirah, two teak-wood beds vide receipt dated 25. 3. 2000 and her statement shall constitute part of her earlier joint statement recorded on 22. 1. 2000. 5. 2000, Ritcha Kumar also made a statement, which was separately recorded to the effect that she had received one Onida Colour T. V. , one Godrej double door Refrigerator, one Godrej store-well Almirah, two teak-wood beds vide receipt dated 25. 3. 2000 and her statement shall constitute part of her earlier joint statement recorded on 22. 1. 2000. ( 6 ) THE Additional District Judge, Faridabad in operative portion of his order, the petition for divorce preferred by Sri Mukul Kumar allowed. The joint petition for divorce, which was preferred by Ritcha Kumar and Mukul Kumar and decree of divorce by mutual consent in the contemplation of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was granted and the marriage stands dissolved from the date of passing of the order i. e. 14. 8. 2000. However, in the fitness of the things, Ex. PX, shall form part of the decree. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. ( 7 ) THE petitioner, his father and mother, against whom the proceedings under Section 498-A was initiated at Jabalpur, stated before this Court that the order of the Honble Supreme Court, the compromise entered into between the parties, by means of the compromise, the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad were sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. ( 8 ) MR. Bireshwar Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite of the order of the Honble Supreme Court and the order of the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, where the compromises were filed, the police issued notices to the petitioners, which has been annexed as annexure Nos. 12, S-l and S-2, which form part of the supplementary affidavit filed today, by means of which, the petitioners were asked to submit three affidavits to the Police Authority in the said proceedings drawn at Jabalpur, so the matter may be placed before the Investigating officer for purposes of closing the matter. ( 9 ) IT was contended by Mr. Bireshwar Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 2, who is the father of Mr. ( 9 ) IT was contended by Mr. Bireshwar Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 2, who is the father of Mr. Mukul Kumar is a practising lawyer of this Court and his wife and son have been harassed in the past and it appears that the police at Jabalpur at the behest of opposite party No. 2, who is the daughter of a retired Judge of the Jabalpur High Court has been unnecessarily harassing the petitioners knowing fully well that the differences were sorted out between the parties. ( 10 ) IN view of the compromise, the police, who have filed a final report, but has unnecessarily been dragging on the matter. ( 11 ) MR. Bireshwar Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioners has also contended before this Court that as to whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain in the present writ petition, when the case under Sections 498-A /34, I. P. C. is pending in the Court of Jabalpur. He relied upon the observations of Honble the Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, reported in III (2000) CCR 164 (SC)=vi (2000) SLT 628= air 2000 SC 2966 , wherein it was observed that the power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of india could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which "the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises" and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High court. The amendment by which Clause (2) is inserted is thus aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs issued by different High Courts. ( 12 ) IN Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the question, which was involved was as to whether the High Court of Bombay had jurisdiction to issue writ under article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of any step taken or not in pursuance of the f. I. R. registered by the Shillong Police in the State of Meghalaya. The Division Bench of the bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants on the ground of want of jurisdiction, but when the matter was taken up in special appeal, the Division Bench expressed a view that the writ petition could be entertained at Bombay and the impugned F. I. R. could be quashed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the matter was placed before Honble the Supreme Court, Honble the Supreme Court upheld the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. ( 13 ) IN view of the submissions made by Mr. Bireshwar nath, learned Counsel for the petitioners, we admit this petition and issue Notices to the respondents, who may file a counter affidavit within six weeks. Till further orders of this Court, the proceedings pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial magistrate, Jabalpur in Case Crime No. 47/1998, shall remain stayed. .