Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 678 (ALL)

AMIT KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-02-23

VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), the applicants (1) Amit Kumar, (2) Smt. Mahendri, (3) Smt. Savita, (4) Smt. Rajnees, (5) Smt. Mamchandra, (6) Amrish, (7) Rajesh and (8) Suneel have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 (State v. Amit Kumar and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime No. 242 of 2008, P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., in brief, are that marriage of applicant No. 1 Amit Kumar and opposite party No. 2 Smt. Aadesh Kumari took place on 6.3.2006, but subsequently some misunderstanding and disputes were developed between the couple, as a result of which Smt. Aadesh Kumari lodged an FIR against the applicants at P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut on 24.2.2008, where a case under Section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at crime No. 242 of 2008. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants, on which cognizance has been taken and on the basis of that chargesheet, criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 was registered against the applicants, which is pending in the Court of Chief Juidical Magistrate, Meerut. An application for granting maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was also moved by opposite party No. 2 Smt. Aadesh Kumari against her husband Amit Kumar (applicant No. 1) in Family Court, Meeurt, which was registered as case No. 44 of 2009. During the pendency of these cases, due to intervention of some well-wishers and relatives, the parties settled their dispute, in consequence whereof the applicant No. 1 paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to Smt. Aadesh Kumari as lumpsum maintenance, on the basis of which, the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been rejected vide order dated 23.8.2009 (annexure-5) passed by the Family Court, Meerut. As a result of the compromise entered into between the parties, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceeding of criminal case referred in para (1) above. 3. As a result of the compromise entered into between the parties, the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceeding of criminal case referred in para (1) above. 3. I have heard arguments of Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State of U.P. 4. The parties have filed joint affidavit annexing therewith a photostat copy of the compromise entered into between them. In para 5 of the compromise, it is stated that the parties would get criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 arising out of case crime No. 242 of 2008 pending in the Court of CJM, Meerut dismissed. In the joint affidavit, which has been filed by the applicant No. 1 Amit Kumar and Smt. Aadesh Kumari (opposite party No. 2), it is stated that the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably out of the Court. 5. Drawing my attention towards the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003(46) ACC 779, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, this Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 (State v. Amit Kumar and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime No. 242 of 2008, P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, as matrimonial dispute has been settled by the parties and with their consent, they have separated themselves and whole time maintenance also been paid to opposite party No. 2 Smt. Aadesh Kumari in the proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 6. Since the parties have settled their matrimonial dispute amicably, hence this Court can quash the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra) has made the following observations in para 12 of the report at page 784 : “There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.” 7. It is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 13 of the report of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra) that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. 8. In the case of Ausaf Ahmad Abbasi v. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (30 JIC 135 (Alld.)), the proceeding of criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act was quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others, 2005 (51) ACC 217 also, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the proceedings of the criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 506, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, due to the compromise entered into between the parties in the proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court, if the criminal proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is allowed to continue. Therefore, to do the complete justice, the proceedings of the said criminal case should be quashed by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 10. Consequently, the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceeding of criminal case No. 2603 of 2009 (State v. Amit Kumar and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime No. 242 of 2008, P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut is hereby quashed. ————