Allahabad High Court
Shashank Gupta @ Anshu And 02 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 4 July, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37976 Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 435 of 2016 Applicant :- Shashank Gupta @ Anshu And 02 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Dinesh Chandra Shukla,Nitin Srivastava,Priyamvada Chauhan,Shishir Pradhan,Sushil Singh Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Case has been called in the revised list.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants is present but none of the counsels is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
3. The present application under Section 482 has been preferred with the following prayer:-
"Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the criminal proceeding pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda and quash the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge Court No.3, Gonda in Criminal Revision No.322/2015 (Shashank alias Anshu and others Vs. State of U.P. & others) relating to criminal case No.2219 of 2015 (State Vs. Shashank Gupta and others), Case Crime No.-18/2014, U/Ss. 498-A, 323,504,506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Gonda contained as Annexure No.-1 to this petition."
4. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 17.01.2013. After the marriage, the applicants came to know that the opposite party no.2 was suffering from mental disability since long back and she was misbehaving with the applicants continuously. When the situation was not resolved between the parties then the applicant no.1 i.e. the husband filed a suit under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act for separation, which was registered as Case No.77 of 2014 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur.
5. After filing of the case under Section 13B, the opposite party no.2 alongwith his family members started misbehaving and threatening the applicants for falsely implicating them in the criminal case. The applicant no.1 in this regard also made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, District Magistrate, Jaunpur, District Magistrate, Gonda and Superintendent of Police, Gonda dated 18.05.2014 sent it by registered post dated 19.05.2014.
6. The opposite party no.2 had also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance on 17.06.2014. The FIR dated 27.10.2024 was also lodged by the opposite party no.2 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in which the chargesheet was filed and the cognizance was taken against the applicants. During the pendency of the criminal case, an application dated 21.04.2015 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was also preferred by the opposite party no.2 before the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gonda.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the criminal case registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, a discharge application was moved on behalf of the applicants but the same was rejected. Against the rejection of the discharge application a revision was preferred i.e. Criminal Revision No.322 of 2015, which was also rejected vide order dated 09.12.2015 and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present application has been preferred.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that three agreements were entered into between the parties i.e. the applicants and the opposite party no.2 one for the case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; second, under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Domestic Violence Act and thirdly; in the present criminal case. In pursuance of the agreements entered into between the parties the cases i.e. the cases filed under Section 125 alongwith the case filed under Section 13B was decreed and the case filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was also decided but after filing the compromise in the Criminal Case No.18 of 2014 after the rejection of the discharge and the revisional order, the opposite party no.2 is not appearing before the court.
9. It is further submitted that all these facts have been brought by the applicants by filing a supplementary affidavit on 25.02.2023/ 27.02.2023 in the present case bringing on record all the agreements entered into between the parties and the judgments/ orders/ decree passed by filing certified copies thereof but even that has not been denied against which no objection has been filed by the opposite party no.2 till date.
10. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the certified copies have been enclosed and on the basis of the agreements entered into between the parties on different dates, the three proceedings have already been attained finality but due to the non-appearance of the opposite party no.2, the present case is still pending though there is an agreement entered into between the parties for the criminal case also, the certified copy of which has already been filed by the applicants alongwith supplementary affidavit.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, after the filing of the supplementary affidavit on 25.02.2023/ 27.02.2023, the case was listed on 19.04.2023 but the learned counsels for the opposite party no.2 had not appeared. The relevant extract of order dated 19.04.2023 is quoted here-in-below:-
"The case is taken up in the revised call.
Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mrs. Kiran Singh, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State-opposite party No. 1 are present.
None is present on behalf of opposite party No. 2 though names of five Advocates have been printed in the cause list from other side, however, short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 by Shri Shishir Pradhan is non the record.
The case is postponed for today.
The matter will be taken up on the next date even if the counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is not appeared.
Put up this case peremptorily on 15.05.2023 before appropriate Court. "
12. The case was next listed on 15.05.2023, Shri Shishir Pradhan, one of the counsel for the opposite party no.2 had appeared put a note that the parties are not in his contact. The order dated 15.05.2023 is quoted here-in-below:-
"This case was mentioned for being taken up, after serving the copy to the learned counsel for the opposite party, wherein Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 put a note that the parties are not in his contact.
Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 could not appear when the case is taken up in the revised call. Apart from Sri Shishir Pradhan, name of three other counsels are printed in the cause list, whereas counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Shishir Pradhan.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as the divorce has already been taken place, thus there is no justification that the proceedings of the present case be kept pending.
Sri Manoj Singh, learned A.G.A. submits that the notice be issued to opposite party No.2 by this Court, as her counsel is not turning up to argue the case.
Accordingly, let notice be issued to opposite party No. 2 by Registered Post A.D. to engage another counsel to appear in the present case or to apprise the Court about the latest position of the case pending before the court below. The opposite party No.2 may file counter affidavit within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week, thereafter.
Steps be taken within seven days from today.
Put up this case on 20.07.2023 before appropriate Bench. "
13. Thereafter, the case was listed on 30.07.2024, again the learned counsels for the opposite party no.2 were not present and the case was adjourned. The order dated 30.07.2024 is quoted here-in-below:-
"1. Case called out in the revised list.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. are present. However, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 is not present.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants informs the Court that the parties have already settled their disputes.
4. Since no-one is appearing for opposite party no.2, list this matter in the next week. "
14. The case was again listed on 08.04.2025 but the learned counsels for the opposite party no.2 had chosen not to appear, the copy of the order dated 08.04.2025 is quoted here-in-below:-
"1. Case called out.
2. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 despite the fact that names of several counsel have been shown in the cause list.
3. However, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
4. List this matter after three weeks. "
15. Today the case is again listed but neither any of the counsels shown for the opposite party no.2 in the list is either present or made any request for adjournment of the case.
16. It is found that in the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicants, the copy of the compromise has already been enclosed filed in Criminal Case No.18 of 2014 signed by both the parties as well as certified copy of the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 regarding the agreement, wherein it has been mentioned that now nothing remain between the parties and they do not want to contest the case against each other.
17. In view of the agreement enclosed alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed in the year 2023, thereafter the case was listed on several dates but till date neither any objection has been filed nor the five counsels shown on behalf of the opposite party no.2 have ever appeared. So, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the certified copies of the agreement entered into between the applicants and the opposite party no.2 and the affidavit of the opposite party no.2 filed in the Criminal Case No.18 of 2014. Once the parties have entered into the compromise, they do not want to contest the case against each other then as the matter amicably been settled between the parties.
18. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicants as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlement between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed,as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
19. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the the applicants.
20. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 4.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif