Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 160 (UTT)

Ramesh Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-06-24

S.K.MISHRA

body2022
JUDGMENT : By filing this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”, for brevity), the applicant has sought to quash the judgment and order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No. 17 of 2012 (Smt. Sunita Rana v. Ramesh Singh Rana and another) in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Domestic Violence Act”, for brevity). 2. The learned Magistrate, while allowing the application by order dated 31.05.2012, has directed that the applicant shall not perpetrate any domestic violence on the private respondents and awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent-wife and her daughter. The aforesaid order dated 31.05.2012 was assailed by the present applicant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2012, which was also disposed of on 11.09.2012 without interfering with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Both the orders dated 31.05.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 11.09.2012, are challenged in this application. 3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no need to pass an order on the merits of the case, as there has been a settlement between the parties. In pursuant to such settlement, the applicant has already paid a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs to the respondent no. 2. Thereafter an application for divorce was also filed by the applicant, which has been allowed ex parte. 4. In drawing the attention of this Court to the agreement dated 07.07.2015, which is Annexure No. 2 to the additional affidavit filed by the applicant, the learned counsel for the applicant would argue that both the parties agreed to end their marriage on the condition that the applicant shall pay a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakhs to the respondent no. 2. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant has already paid the amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs, and the respondent no. 2 has already withdrawn the said amount. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that now the respondent no. 2 is not appearing and her whereabouts are not known. Even Mr. 4.00 lakhs to the respondent no. 2. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant has already paid the amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs, and the respondent no. 2 has already withdrawn the said amount. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that now the respondent no. 2 is not appearing and her whereabouts are not known. Even Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, the learned Senior Counsel, who had earlier filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 2, is also not appearing in the Court on successive dates. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, the learned Senior Counsel, has informed him that respondent no. 2 is not in touch with him. 6. In order to quash an order passed by the learned Magistrate, in a similar situation on the basis of a settlement, the learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal and others; 2005 SCC (Cri) 719, wherein on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the husband and his wife and on acceptance of the fact that a lump-sum amount has been paid to the respondent therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent therein for the offence under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 7. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by this Court in the case of Dr. Ashish Verma and others v. State of Uttarakhand and another; [2009 (64) ACC 105], wherein a Single Bench of this Court has held that in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the fact that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served to prolong the pendency of the cases and, therefore, this Court went on to quash the criminal proceedings. 8. In applying the aforesaid ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the reported cases, this Court takes into consideration the document filed as Annexure No. 2 to the additional affidavit filed by the applicant. 8. In applying the aforesaid ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the reported cases, this Court takes into consideration the document filed as Annexure No. 2 to the additional affidavit filed by the applicant. It reads as follows :- ^^le>kSrk@lgefr i= ge ds jes'k flag iq= Jh cpu flag vk;q 35 o"kZ] fuoklh xzke dksV iVVh tqok mn;iqj] rglhy d.MhlkSM ftyk fVgjh xढ+oky okyk bl lgefr i= dk izFke i{k o Jhefr lquhrk iRuh jes'k flag vk;q 29 o"kZ fuoklh xzke dksV iVVh tqok mn;iqj] rglhy d.MhlkSM ftyk fVgjh xढ++oky okyh bl lgefr i= dh fnrh; i{k vius&vius LoLFk fpr fLFkj cqf} o fcuk fdlh u'khyh oLrq dk lsou fd;s ;g le>kSrk i= rgjhj djok;s nsrs gS fd ge i{kdkjke dk fnukad 23 vDVwcj 2004 dks fgUnq /keZ'kkL= o LFkkuh; jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj fookg lEiUu gqvk Fkk fookg mijkar lu~ 2008 tuojh esa gekjh iq=h dqŒvkLFkk dk tUe gqvk gS o dqŒ vkLFkk dk tUe gqvk gS o dqŒ vkLFkk ds tUe d iwoZ ls gh ge nksuksa d e/;s fookn xfreku Fkk o lu~ 2010 ls ge i{kdkjku LFkk;h :i ls nkEiR; thou ifjR;kx dj j[kk gS o vc nkEiR; thou cuk;s j[kuk o ,d lkFk jguk vlEHko gks pqdk gS blfy;s ge fookg foPNsn dj nwljs ls ges'kk ges'kk ds fy;s vyx o Lora= jguk pkgrs gS gekjh iq=h dqŒ vkLFkk vius tUe ds le; ls viuh ekrk Jhefr lquhrk nsoh f}rh; i{k ds ikl jgrh vk jgh gS ge i{kdkjku ds e/;s ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; uSuhrky mŸkjk[k.M esa ,d nwljs ds fo:) eqdnesa xfreku gS geus vkilh lgefr ls g; vfare fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd vc ge Hkfo"; es ,d nwljs ds lkFk crkSj ifr iRuh thou ;kiu lgh dj ldrs gS rFkk LFkk;h :i ls fookg foPNsn djuk pkgrs gS ftlds fy;s f}rh; i{k us vius o viuh iq=h dqŒ vkLFkk ds Hkj.k iks”k.k gsrq la;qDRk :i ls izFke i{k ls 4]00]000@& :¼pkj yk[k :Œ½ ,deq'r Hkj.k iks"k.k jkf'k dh ekax dh gS tks fd izFke i{k us vnk dj nh gS o f}rh; i{k us xzg.k dj Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA f}rh; i{k Hkfo"; esa vius o viuh iq=h dqŒ vkLFkk ds Hkj.k iks"k.k gsrq izFke i{k ds fo:) fdlh Hkh /kujkf'k dks ekax ugh djsxh o bl lEca/k es dksbZ okn nk;j ugha djsxk f}rh; i{k us iw.kZr;k larq”V gksdj LosPNk ls mDr ,deq'r Hkj.k iks"k.k jkf'k pkj yk[k :Œ izkIr dj fy;s gS i{kdkjku ,dnwljs ds fo:) nk;j vius&vius okn ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; mŸkjk[k.M uSuhrky esa Loa; ds [kpsZ ij okil ysus dks ck/; jgsaxsa o ,d nwljs d fo:) l{ke U;k;ky; esa fookg foPNsn gsrq okn nk;j djsa bl ij f}rh; i{k dks dksbZ vkifŸk ugh gksxh vkSj og izfrokn djus ds fy;s U;k;ky; esa gkftj ugh vk;sxhA vr% ;g le>kSrk@lgefr i= vkt fnukad 07&07&2015 dks LFkku ftyk U;k;ky; ifjlj ubZ fVgjh xढ+oky vius&vius gLrk{kj dj izekf.kr fd;s nsrs gS rkfd izek.k dks dke vkosA^^ 9. Thus, it is clear that the applicant as well as the respondent no. 2 have already entered into a settlement to settle their disputes and, in pursuance thereof, the applicant has already paid a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakhs to the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 has not appeared to contest the averments made by the applicant. It is also borne out from the record that Original Case No. 59 of 2015 was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tehri Garhwal, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein divorce has been granted in favour of the applicant ex parte. It is, therefore, clear from the records that inspite of sufficiency of service of notice on respondent no. 2, she has not appeared before this Court for the last few dates of listing, though by order dated 17.11.2021, she was directed to appear in the Court on 31.12.2021. 10. In that view of the matter, we accept the compromise arrived at between the parties and quash the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 11. However, since the present order is passed on the basis of a document, which the respondent no. 2 had not objected to, we give liberty to respondent no. 2, if so advised or if any further cause of action persists, to file an appropriate application for modification/recall of this order. 12. With such observations, the present application under Section 482 of the Code is, hereby, allowed. In sequel thereto, all pending applications stand disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.