Allowed application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings alleging domestic violence and cruelty where marriage was dissolved by mutual consent decree and opposite party showed disinclination to prosecute.
Quashing of entire proceeding including charge-sheet in Case no. 990 of 2013 u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.
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. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10325 of 2014
Applicant :- Ramwati And 3 Ors. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Pawan Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding including charge-sheet dated 21.4.2013 of Case no. 990 of 2013 in Case Crime no. 7/2013, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.
Record reveals that opposite party no. 2 despite service has not appeared in this court. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit which is divorce decree wherein it is recorded that marriage has been dissolved and divorce decree with mutual consent has been passed vide order dated 24.12.2014 by Principal Judge, Family court East Delhi in HMA no. 2214 of 2014. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards annexure SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit which is prayer for dissolution of marriage by both the parties and in para-3 of the said agreement it is however agreed between the parties that husband shall pay Rs. 60,000/- on 28.5.2014 at the time of withdrawal of Domestic Violence Act pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila court. Para-5a reads as under:-
"It is further agreed between the parties that quashing petition for quashing the F.I.R. no. 7/13 u/s 498A and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, S.58 Noida, shall be filed before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court within 15 days from the date of passing of decree of divorce by mutual consent."
Learned counsel states that he has made sincere efforts to call opposite party no. 2 before the Court for quashing the proceeding, however, the opposite party no. 2 shown her disinclination. The Court vide order dated 30.7.2019 had observed that it is made clear that no further opportunity shall be given and if the opposite party does not appear on the next
date, the case shall be decided on merits by the court.
From the office report dated 30.7.2019 service of notice on opposite party no. 2 has been affected but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 nor any affidavit has been filed. In the light of the aforesaid it transpires that since the opposite party no. 2 has settled their differences and already taken divorce by mutual consent she does not interest in prosecuting the proceeding against the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present application u/s 482 is allowed considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675 as well as in the case of Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab, SCC 2012 Vol.10, Page 303, and the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Dhirendra/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. should be allowed to quash proceedings for marital offences where parties are divorced under mutual consent.
Whether the legal opinion of an absent opposite party can be binding when they have no interest in prosecuting the case post-divorce.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶12
B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Gyan Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶12
Gyan Singh vs. State of Punjab, SCC 2012 Vol.10, Page 303 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Ramtawi and 3 Ors.
State of U.P.
Opposite Party no. 2
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
