Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neelanjana Gupta Wife Of Shri ... vs State Of U.P. Through The Secretary ... on 22 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)DMC841
Bench: Imtiyaz Murtaza, Amar Saran
JUDGMENT
Imtiyaz Murtaza and Amar Saran, JJ.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the first information report lodged at case crime No. 395 of 2005, under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Colonelganj, district Allahabad.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, and have perused the affidavits and counter-affidavits filed by the parties.
3. The F.I.R. contained the usual allegations of cruelty and dowry demand. As the parties appeared to be of respectable status and petitioner No. 3 is said to be working in Infosys company it was apparent to this Court that the RR has been lodged under the aforesaid sections in view of the marital incompatibility between the petitioner No. 3, Prashant Gupta and respondent No. 3 Smt. Anjali Gupta, It may be mentioned that a divorce suit had even been filed by respondent No, 3 against petitioner No, 3 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. Keeping in mind the sage advice of the apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386 to Courts to encourage settlement of marital disputes between contesting spouses so that they do not lose? their youthful years in chasing interminable litigations, we encouraged the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement with the aid of their counsel. Accordingly during the course of the hearing of this petition on 9.5.2006, we postponed the case to 17.5.2006 so that the parties could thrash out the terms of a settlement. Fortunately the parties and counsel have heeded our advice, and have reached a fair settlement to the satisfaction of both parties.
5. In pursuance of the compromise, the petitioner No. 3 has paid Rs. 600,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) by two bank drafts and a counter affidavit dated 9.5.2006 has even been by respondent No. 3 in which she has admitted receiving the amount. She has further mentioned that she is no more interested in prosecuting the petitioners on the basis of the FIR. She is also willing to file an application for withdrawal of criminal case No, 541 of 2005 (Smt Anjali Gupta v. Prashant Gupta) under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure pending before the Principal Judge, family court, Allahabad. She further states that she will not claim any kind of maintenance from petitioner No. 3 in future also.
6. The petitioners are also agreeable to the aforesaid terms of the compromise. Learned Counsel for the petitioners however urges that petitioner No. 3 has no objection to the divorce decree being granted, but as petitioner No. 3 is not in Allahabad as he has to remain out of station and sometimes out of the country in connection with his employment in Infosys Ltd., when he appears before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad to file his consent and absence of objection to the prayer for divorce being sought by respondent No. 3., the concerned court may be directed to dispose of the petition for divorce speedily and not grant any unnecessary adjournment.
7. Reiterating the following lines from paragraph 10 of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, I think the interests of justice would be met if we the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end. The lines read:
In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699, considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer dearly has to be in 'negative'. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.
8. In B.S. Joshi's case it has further been observed in paragraph 8, that in an appropriate case for securing the ends of justice, the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C or even in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. In another decision of the apex Court, Smt Swati Verma v. Rajan Verma and Ors. , where similar to the present case the disputes including the criminal and divorce litigation between the sparring spouses had been decided on the basis of a compromise and where again the husband had paid Rs. 6 lakhs to his wife for the settlement, the apex Court had quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498A, and 406 IPC before the OM, rendering the application under section 482 Cr.P.C before the Allahabad High Court infructuous. It had also granted the decree of divorce, rendering the divorce suit pending before the ADJ at Delhi infructuous, In that case in paragraph 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed:
7. Having perused the records placed before us we are satisfied that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and with a view to restore good relationship and to put a quietus to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigation, so that they may live peacefully hereafter, and on the request of the parties, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we allow the application for divorce by mutual consent filed before us under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act and declare that the marriage solemnized between the consenting parties on 13th June, 2001 at Delhi is hereby dissolved, and they are granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
10. Taking a cue from the aforesaid decisions we think that the interest of justice would be met if the FIR at Case Crime No. 395 of 2005 and the 125 Cr.P.C proceedings between the parties are quashed by this Court.
11. As we feel that the parties have amicably parted on the intervention of this Court and the petitioner Prashant Gupta has paid a substantial amount of Rs. 6 lakhs to arrive at a permanent settlement with Anjali Gupta, the parties may now be interested in getting on with their lives, marrying someone else of their choices, we therefore think that considering the apparent irretrievable break down of their marriage, and for putting a 'quietus to the litigations' the Principal Judge Family Court may also consider passing appropriate orders in the petition for divorce filed by Smt. Anjali Gupta most expeditiously It is directed that when petitioner Prashant Gupta who works out of station and who needs to travel abroad appears before the Court concerned for the purpose of filing his absence of objections to the prayer for divorce the concerned Court should not grant any unnecessary adjournment.
12. In this view of the matter, we quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in case crime No. 395 of 2005, under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3A of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Colonelganj, district Allahabad. We further quash the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C in case No. 451 of 2005, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. We also direct the Principal Judge, Family court, Allahabad not to grant any adjournment on the date when petitioner No. 3 appears before the Court for filing his consent and no objection to the grant of a decree of divorce to respondent No. 3 in her petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against petitioner No. 3, and to pass appropriate orders very expeditiously. The concerned Court is also directed to pass appropriate orders in the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C in the light of the orders passed in this writ petition. In future also it is expected that the parties shall not raise any claim or counter claim against each other. With these observations, this writ petition is allowed.
13. Copy of the order may be given to the parties by 27th May 2006 on payment of usual costs.