Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2034 (JHR)

Amit Mohan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-11-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard the Parties. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1116 of 2016 including the order dated 3.10.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi, whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offence under section 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. 3. A complaint case was instituted by the O.P. No. 2, in which it was stated that the marriage of the O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner no. 1 on 15.2.2009 and out of the said wedlock a son was born on 20.8.2014. Allegation has been levelled by the O.P. No. 2 that she was subjected to physical and mental torture and there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant. Based on the aforesaid allegations, C.P. Case No. 1116 of 2016 was instituted, in which upon conducting an enquiry, cognizance was taken on 3.10.2016. Since there was a possibility of settlement between the parties, matter was heard in Chambers on several occasions and ultimately the parties agreed to various terms and conditions, which has been mentioned in the order dated 7.11.2017, which reads as follows:- (i) The petitioner No. 1 has agreed to make payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 20 Lakhs which shall be handed over to the opposite party No. 2 on 08.11.2011 as soon as the application under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is filed. (ii) Since the petitioner No. 1 has shown some inconvenience of getting the furniture transferred to Ranchi from Ahmad Nagar, as he is presently posted in an insurgency environment, he has offered to make payment of Rs. 1 Lakh to the opposite party No. 2 so that she may set up house and which has been accepted by the opposite party No. 2. The amount of Rs. 1 Lakh shall also be paid by the petitioner No. 1 on 8.11.2017 itself. (iii) In order to facilitate the upbringing of the child, namely, Siddhant who is aged about 03 years, the petitioner No. 1 has agreed to make payment of Rs. 12 thousand per month in the account which is to be opened in the name of the child and operated by his mother, namely, Smt. Isha Mohan. (iii) In order to facilitate the upbringing of the child, namely, Siddhant who is aged about 03 years, the petitioner No. 1 has agreed to make payment of Rs. 12 thousand per month in the account which is to be opened in the name of the child and operated by his mother, namely, Smt. Isha Mohan. The petitioner No. 1 has stated that on account of some technicalities, the regular monthly salary sometimes is not made available and in order to prevent any inconvenience which may be caused to the child he shall make payment at one go the amount of maintenance of three months'' i.e. Rs. 36 thousand. (iv) The Petitioner No. 1 who is an Army Personnel has assured this Court that the dependent card of his son shall be renewed every year. (v) The Passport of the opposite party No. 2 as well as a single ornament which the petitioner No. 1 admits to be in his possession shall be returned back to the opposite party No. 2 tomorrow itself at the time of filing of the application under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. (vi) The opposite party No. 2 shall handover the canteen card of the petitioner No. 1 as well as the ATM card which is in her possession tomorrow itself. (vi) It has been agreed upon by both the parties that no additional terms and conditions shall be inserted in the joint compromise petition which shall be filed in the present case within a week". 4. Today, learned counsel for the respective parties have stated that all the conditions have been adhered to and the amount which was given to the O.P. No. 2 has been encashed by her. It is stated that the articles with respect to return of ATM Card and other articles have already been exchanged between the parties. It has further been stated that the application preferred under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been fixed for judgment on 27th November, 2017. 5. Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, has submitted that since the entire dispute has been settled, he does not have any objection if the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioners is quashed. 6. 5. Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, has submitted that since the entire dispute has been settled, he does not have any objection if the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioners is quashed. 6. Considering the fact that the parties have adhered to the terms and conditions agreed upon by them before this Court and the marriage is also on the verge of being dissolved and since other conditions have already been fulfilled between the parties, it would be an act in futility to continue with the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners. 7. In view of the aforesaid, therefore, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 1116 of 2016 including the order dated 3.10.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi, whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offence under section 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of. 9. Let a copy of the order dated 9.11.2017 as also this order be served upon the respective parties.