Allowed

Anuj Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2020CRLP/10574/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an FIR under matrimonial and dowry-related sections and a summoning order in a complaints case after verifying that the parties reached a settlement and resumed living together, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes.

What did the court decide?

FIR dated 30.03.2019 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act quashed; summoning order in Complaint Case No. 1079 of 2017 quashed.

Anuj Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10574 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat

¶3

alongwith Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19996 of 2019 Applicant :- Rashmi And 02 Others

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.

¶6

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed by the husband and other close relatives of respondent no. 3 seeking quashing of the impugned FIR dated 30.03.2019 registering Case Crime No. 170 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi. On the other hand, Application U/s 482 No. 19996 of 2019 has been filed by the wife and her parents against the husband of petitioner no. 1 under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rath, District-Hamirpur in Complaint Case No. 1079 of 2017 (Anuj Kumar vs. Rashmi and Others) under provisions of Sections 380, 504, 506 IPC.

¶9

It is submitted that parties have entered into a compromise and have started living together. This fact is evident from the report of the mediator dated 23.09.2019 envisaging the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived between the parties at Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in Mediation Case No. 1452 of 2019.

¶10

Learned counsel for the parties agree that pursuant to such settlement, they have started living together as husband and wife and expressed their satisfaction before the mediator as to the reunion and stated that they want to continue to live together for rest of their lives, discharging all their matrimonial

¶11

obligations towards each other.

¶12

In view of such facts, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 403, in which para-13 reads as under:-

¶13

"........13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

¶14

i) that the power conferred Under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences Under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶15

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶16

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶17

iv) offences Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers Under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 Indian Penal Code in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 Indian Penal Code is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. For this purpose, it would be

¶18

open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶19

v) while exercising the power Under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the Accused; the conduct of the Accused, namely, whether the Accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

¶20

This Court is of the opinion that in the interest of couple continuance of the FIR may be detrimental to their matrimonial happiness and therefore, FIR registering Case No. 170 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi is quashed.

¶21

Similarly, petition filed by wife under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also needs to be allowed quashing the summoning order and all consequential proceedings originating out of Complaint Case No. 1079 of 2017 (Anuj Kumar vs. Rashmi and Others) under the provisions of Sections 380, 504, 506 IPC.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, petitions are allowed and disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 2.11.2020 Vikram/-

Anuj Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujahid @ Mujahid Husain and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajmal Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raghvendra Alias Dheeru and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Arvind Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others