Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1801 (ALL)

VINOD KUMAR RASTOGI v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-08-03

AKHILESH CHANDRA SHARMA, KRISHNA MURARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Akhilesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 367 of 2017, under Sections 419/420/467/468/469/471 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Allahabad so far as it relates to the petitioners and also for direction to the opposite parties not to arrest them in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. 3. Finding that first information report is a result of matrimonial dispute going on between the petitioner no. 3 and respondent no. 3 who are wife and husband, we decided to explore the possibility of any settlement between them vide order dated 11.07.2017 directed the petitioner no. 3 and respondent no. 3 to appear in person before us on 21.07.2017. 4. Though the parties appeared on the said date but on account of members of Bar abstaining from work, proceedings were adjourned to 26.07.2017 and the matter was directed to be listed in Chambers at 3:00 PM. 5. On the said date again both parties appeared and after our persuasion and counselling, both the parties have agreed to an amicable settlement of not only separating from each other but also agreed to settle all other ancillary litigation pending between the parties. Accordingly, parties were directed to file joint affidavit setting out the terms and conditions, to which they had agreed before us. The petition along with connected petition was directed to be posted on 03.08.2017 at 03:30 PM in Chambers. 6. Both parties again appeared along with their counsel and filed joint affidavit setting out the terms and conditions of settlement which is taken on record. The terms and condition agreed upon by the parties set out in the joint affidavit is as under: "(2) That dispute and differences had arisen between the parties hereto and in the event of the same, some cases were lodged by the deponent no. 1 and her family members against the deponent no. 2 and his family. Details of the cases filed by the deponent no. 1 and her family members against the deponent no. 2 are as under: (i) Divorce Petition No. 592 of 2014, Arpita Rastogi Vs. 1 and her family members against the deponent no. 2 and his family. Details of the cases filed by the deponent no. 1 and her family members against the deponent no. 2 are as under: (i) Divorce Petition No. 592 of 2014, Arpita Rastogi Vs. Rajeev Anand under Section 13 (1) (i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. (ii) Case Crime No. 80 of 2014 under Section 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Muthiganj, Allahabad. (iii) Case Crime No. 148 of 2014 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Muthiganj, Allahabad. (iv) Complaint case no. 6917 of 2017, Vinod Kumar Rastogi Vs. Rajeev Anand, Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room no. 10, Allahabad. (v) Maintenance Petition no. 372 of 2017, Arpita Rastogi Vs. Rajeev Anand under Section 125 Cr. P. C. pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. (vi) Complaint Case No. 2251 of 2017, Arpita Rastogi Vs. Rajeev Anand and another, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 10, Allahabad. (3) That the cases lodged by deponent no. 2 against the deponent no. 1 and her family members are as under: (i) Case Criminal no. 367 of 2017, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Allahabad. (4) That the parties have with the assistance of the respectable elders/persons voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the above mentioned disputes and differences and have mutuall compromised and settled their disputes. (5) That the parties hereto being petitioner no. 3 the wife and respondent no. 3 the husband confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived to the decision that they will forget their sour past and will live their life by taking decree of divorce for the better and best of their-selves. (6) That the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to their matrimony/financial claims in any manner and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto. (6) That the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to their matrimony/financial claims in any manner and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto. (7) That in view of the fact that parties have compromised and had withdrew all claims and allegations against each other. (8) That on the facts and circumstances stated above it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the entire proceedings of the cases mentioned in paragraph no. 2 and 3 of the present joint affidavit, be quashed and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad may be directed to decide/decree the Divorce Petition being Divorce Petition No. 592 of 2014, Arpita Rastogi Vs. Rajeev Anand under Section 13 (1) (i-a), Hindu Marriage Act 1955 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad within the period as directed by this Hon'ble Court." 7. Even though some of the criminal cases instituted by the parties against each other are in respect of non-compoundable offences, however, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 has held that High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C./extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution can quash such criminal proceedings, if it is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. 8. Since all the litigation between the parties is an outcome of matrimonial discord between them in which other family members have also been implicated and in view of our persuasion and counselling, they have agreed for settlement of dispute and withdrawal of civil and criminal cases initiated by them against each other, we consider it expedient in the interest of justice to set at rest all the dispute between the parties and to close all the litigation pending between them. 9. Accordingly, in the above noted peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petitions by making following directions: (i) Proceedings of Case Crime No. 80 of 2014 under Section 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC read with Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Muthiganj, Allahabad, (ii) Case Crime No. 148 of 2014 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Muthiganj, Allahabad, (iii) Complaint case no. 6917 of 2017, Vinod Kumar Rastogi Vs. Rajeev Anand, Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room no. 10, Allahabad. (iv) Maintenance Petition no. 372 of 2017, Arpita Rastogi Vs. Rajeev Anand under Section 125 Cr. P. C. pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. (v) Complaint Case No. 2251 of 2017, Arpita Rastogi Vs. Rajeev Anand and another, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 10, Allahabad and (vi) Case Crime no. 367 of 2017, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Allahabad shall stand quashed. 10. In so far as Divorce Petition No. 592 of 2014, Arpita Rastogi Vs. Rajeev Anand under Section 13 (1) (i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad is concerned, the Family Court is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid divorce petition in terms of compromise by granting a decree of divorce within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. It is being made clear that in view of clause (6) of agreement that there is no claim of demand against each other with respect to matrimony/financial claims in any manner, thus there is no obligation on the Family Court to pass any order in respect of any alimony to be granted while passing a decree of divorce. 12. Parties shall be free to live independent life as soon as decree of divorce is passed by the Family Court, Allahabad. 13. Writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of.