This 482 Cr.P.C. application sought to quash proceedings for matrimonial offences. The High Court applied Rajesh Sharma directions, directing referral to district mediation within 15 days and granting interim protection from coercive action pending a settlement.
Mediation ordered; interim protection granted upon deposit of Rs. 15,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21326 of 2018 Applicant :- Durgvijay And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the further proceeding of complaint case no. 417 of 2017 (Nandani Devi Vs. Durgvijay and others) under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station- Ahirauli Bazar, District- Kushinagar, pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Kasya, District Kushinagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No.1 is the husband, the applicant No.2 is the father-in-law and the applicant No. 3 is the mother-in-law of the opposite party No.2. It is stated that the present criminal proceedings do arise out of matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is, therefore, submitted that if the parties are to be offered assistance of mediation, they may be able to resolve their differences and bring an end to all disputes and differences between, amicably.
The Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 3869, has issued certain directions regarding matrimonial disputes. Paragraph 19 of the judgement which contains the direction so issued, is reproduced hereunder:-
"19. Thus, after careful consideration of the whole issue, we consider it fit to give following directions :-
(i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.
(b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing.
(c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.
(d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication. (e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint. (f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter. (g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected. (h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit. (i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time. (j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable. (k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper. (ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officer may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from today; (iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord; (iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day's notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed; (v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine; (vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial
disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and (vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death."
In view of the aforesaid, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before this Court. The Court below is directed to refer the parties to mediation at District concerned within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
It is directed that applicants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/within two weeks from today with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court of which Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party no.2 for appearance before the Mediation Centre on a date to be fixed by the mediation centre. Balance Rs. 5,000/- shall be retained by the mediation centre towards its expenses.
The mediation centre shall submit its report within one month from the date of receipt of the case before the learned Magistrate.
For a period of two months from today or till the submission of the report by the mediation centre, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants subject to the applicants depositing the amount of Rs. 15,000/- as above. If bail application is filed by the applicants, the same shall be decided according to the direction contained in Rajesh Sharma's case (supra).
After depositing the amount, aforesaid, notice shall be issued to the parties and in the case the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted above shall automatically be vacated.
It is however provided that in case the mediation fails, the applicants shall be at liberty to file a fresh application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stands disposed of. Order Date :- 15.6.2018
Pratima
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute should be quashed or referred to mediation.
Whether interim protection from coercive action can be granted during mediation.
Whether the working directions of Rajesh Sharma regarding mediation and bail apply to the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and anotherApplied¶6
Rajesh Sharma and Others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2017 AIR (SC) 3869 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Durgvijay and 3 Others
State Of U.P.
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
