Allahabad High Court
Prateek Arora And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 April, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:74353 Court No. - 91 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9219 of 2023 Applicant :- Prateek Arora And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of charge sheet no.24 of 2021, dated 28.05.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 25.06.2021 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.79614 of 2021 (State Vs. Prateek Arora and others) pending before Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Kanpur Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No.05 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar in terms of compromise deed dated 09.06.2022 entered between the parties and same has been filed along with the petition under Section 13 (B) (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Principal Judge, Family Court, North-West, Rohini, Delhi on 30.11.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage of applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 20.11.2017, after sometime matrimonial dispute arose between them, thereafter, opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR on 19.01.2021 against the applicant no.1, husband and his family members with the allegation of demand of dowry. After investigation charge sheet was filed on 28.05.2021 and the cognizance was taken on 25.06.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that during pendency of trial both the parties had entered into a compromise on 09.06.2022 in which it was agreed that the applicant no.1 would pay Rs.10 lacs to opposite party no.2 and also return the entire Streedhan to her. It was also agreed that after receiving the money, opposite part no.2 would withdraw all the criminal cases pending between them. For ready reference, paragraph no.viii of the compromise is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"viii. That it has been amicably decided between both the parties that both of them would withdraw & also help/cooperate in quashing all the pending cases between them & their family members if they decided to dissolve their marriage."
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the settlement, the applicant no.1 moved an application under Section 13B (1) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Court concerned for decree of divorce by mutual consent. On the first date of motion the applicant no.1 had given a draft of Rs.5 lacs to opposite party no.2 and on the second date of motion another draft of Rs.5 lac rupees was given to her by the applicant no.1. Thereafter, the decree of divorce was granted on 28.02.2023. After getting the decree of divorce and receiving the money, the opposite party no.2 is not appearing or participating in the criminal proceedings. He submits that the criminal cases pending against the applicants may be quashed on the basis of compromise.
4. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicants is placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal reported in 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1343. Paragraph nos.7 & 8, which are relevant are quoted hereunder:-
"Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above-mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondent-husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings arising from the Criminal Case No.Cr.No.224/2003 registered in Police Station, Bilaspur, (Distt.Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is disposed of."
5. He further relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Shamim Vs. Nahid Begum reported in 2005 LawSuit (SC) 37 in which the ratio of Ruchi Agarwal (supra) has been followed. Relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted hereinbelow:-
"In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this case also, would be an abuse of the process of the court. The Appellant No.1, however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.50,000/- which has been deposited in the court. We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142of the Constitution of India direct that the impugned judgment be set aside. The First Information Report lodged against the Appellants is quashed. The Appeal is allowed. However, this order should not be treated as a precedent."
6. He also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj & Others reported in 2014 LawSuit (SC) 1053. Relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted hereinbelow:-
"It is clear from perusal of the impugned order of the High Court that the development of settlement between the parties during pendency of the revision petition has not even been adverted to. Once the matter was settled between the parties and the said settlement was given effect to in the form of divorce by mutual consent, no further dispute survived between the parties, though it was not so expressly recorded in the order of this Court. No liberty was reserved by the wife to continue further proceedings against the husband. Thus, the wife was, after settling the matter, estopped from continuing the proceedings. In any case, it is well settled that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can interfere with the acquittal only if there is perversity in the order of acquittal. In the present case, the order of acquittal could not be held to be perverse. The High Court observed that the demand of articles, papers of house property of Jabalpur and Noida and the contents of Exhibits Ka2 and Ka3 amounted to harassment, cruelty and mental torture. This observation amounted to substitution of its view by the High Court for the view taken by the Magistrate after due consideration of all the allegations. The Magistrate inter alia found the version of the respondent-wife to be not believable and also found that the allegations were not substantiated. It was observed that the wife herself admitted that the documents Exhibit Ka2 and Ka3 were merely guidelines for good conduct and behavior expected of her and did not amount to cruelty. It was also admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. The Investigating Officer had never visited Jabalpur and the demand of house at Jabalpur was not substantiated. It was further observed that criminal case filed by the wife was a counter blast to the divorce case filed by the husband. Version before the Court was improvement over the original version in the First Information Report. She had given contradictory statement about the place where her husband demanded the house. Thus, the Magistrate having dealt with the matter threadbare, the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal particularly when the parties had reached the settlement before this Court on the basis of which divorce by mutual consent was granted by the Family Court, Jabalpur which fact was placed on record of the High Court."
7. He also placed reliance on the judgement of High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in the case of Anshul Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in 2024 LawSuit (MP) 145. Relevant paragraph of which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"In view of the facts and circumstance of the case in hand, and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as also this Court, both the petitions stand allowed with cost of Rs.1 lakh and the FIR lodged at Crime No.999 of 2018 registered at Police Station - Vijay Nagar, Indore under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 34 325 and 313 of IPC and the subsequent charges framed against them by the trial Court vide order dated 18.07.2022 and 04.08.2022 and the proceedings which are pending in S.T. No.578 of 2019 are hereby quashed."
8. Per contra, learned AGA although has opposed the prayer made by the applicants but could not dispute the factual as well as the legal position as stated above.
9. The notice for this application was served on to the opposite party no.2 on 10.04.2023, but no one appears on her behalf. It seems that she is not willing to defend/oppose the instant application.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is clear that the parties have entered into compromise. The opposite party no.2 after receiving the agreed amount and getting decree of divorce by mutual consent is not withdrawing the pending criminal proceedings. This action of opposite party no.2 is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court referred above, the charge sheet no.24 of 2021, dated 28.05.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 25.06.2021 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.79614 of 2021 (State Vs. Prateek Arora and others) pending before Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Kanpur Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No.05 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar are hereby quashed in terms of compromise deed dated 09.06.2022 entered between the parties before the Principal Judge, Family Court, North-West, Rohini, Delhi on 30.11.2022.
12. Accordingly, the instant applicant U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2024 S.P.