Allowed

Shrawan Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023/291/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal revision seeking quashing of a summons order issued in criminal complaints arising from matrimonial disputes. Relying on Apex Court precedents regarding compromise in matrimonial matters, the court held that since the parties had settled their dispute amicably by executing a compromise deed and withdrawing related civil and criminal cases, it was unnecessary to procee

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings and the impugned summoning order dated 08.02.2017 were quashed.

Shrawan Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42374

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 291 of 2017 Revisionist :- Shrawan Kumar Gupta And Ors. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Waris Farooqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State are present. None appear on behalf of opposite party no.2 to press this revision.

¶6

This revision under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. 1973 has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Utraula, District Balrampur in Complaint Case No. 1005 of 2016 (Vineet Gupta Vs. Shrawan Kumar and others), by means of which revisions have been summoned to face trial for the offence under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and revisionist no.1 has also been summoned to face trial under section 494 IPC in furtherance to above noted sections.

¶7

3. It is submitted that marriage revisionist no.1 with respondent no.2 was solemnize in the presence of first wife of revisionist no.1 Smt. Radha Devi and other reputed persons of the family and a marriage agreement was also executed in this regard. After marriage the respondent no.2 was insisting the revisionist no.1 to divorce his first wife for which revisionist no.1 was not ready due to which the respondent no.2 left the house of revisionist no.1. It is further submitted that respondent no.2 filed an applicant under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of false and concocted facts by concealing the facts that she too is already married with Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta which was converted to complaint case. The statements of respondent no.2 and other witnesses were recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate merely relying upon the statements of respondent no.2 and interested witnesses, in arbitrary manner summoned the revisionists to face trial under

¶8

aforesaid sections.

¶9

4. It is further submitted that parties have compromise the matter, therefore, the criminal revision may be disposed of in terms of compromise. Learned counsel for revisionists argued that respondent no.2 had initiated the proceedings bearing Case No.549 of 2016, under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Kotwali Utraula, District Balrmpur, Complaint Case No.1005 of 2016 (Vineeta Gupta Vs. Shrawan Kumar and Others), under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC, and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur and one more for maintenance bearing Case No.190 of 2016(Vineeta Gupta Vs. Shrawan Kumar), was also filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisions. In Complaint Case No.1005 of 2016, revisionists have been summoned by the court below vide order dated 08.02.2017, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC, and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also submitted that by efflux of time good sense prevail in both the parties and they have decided to settled their dispute amicably and entered into compromise on 13.07.2020. The certified copy of the compromise was filed in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Balrampur in Case No.190 of 2016 and also moved an application dated 02.12.2020 in Case No.549 of 2016 under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. Certified copy of the compromise is filed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit filed in support of revision. Lumpsump amount of Rs.2 lacs has been paid by the revisionist to the opposite party no.2 vide Bank Draft No.537347, in discharge of his duty to maintain his wife. It is also mentioned in the compromise deed that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with Complaint Case No.1005 of 2016, Case No.549 of 2016, under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, and the Case No.190 of 2016, under section 125

¶10

Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is prayed that it is expedient in the interest of justice that present criminal revision may be decided in the light of above mentioned compromise deed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionists in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1 and Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another reported in 2008 (9) SCC 677 and has submitted that the revisionists and opp. party No.2 have compromised the dispute and as such opp. party No.2 does not want to press the aforesaid case against the revisionists. The opp. party No.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the revisionists and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶12

6. It transpires from the record that opposite party no.2 solemnized marriage with revisionist in a temple and executed a matrimonial contract. It is mentioned in clause-3 of the compromise that the first wife of the revisionist no.1 shall reside with the revisionist and marriage was solemnized with the consent of first wife of revisionist. Thereafter, the dispute arose between the revisionist no.1 and opposite party no.2, which has been finally settled vide compromise deed (Annexure No.1) and it is specifically mentioned in Class-5 of compromise deed that Case No.549 of 2016 under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act shall also be withdrawn by opposite party no.2, as she does not want to proceed with the case. It is also mentioned in Class-5 of the compromise deed that Complaint Case No.1005 of 2016, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC, and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is to be withdrawn at the end of opposite party no.2, Vineeta Gupta. In the light of evidence available in the record it is evident that opposite party

¶13

no.2 was not legally weded wife of revisionist no.1 and she resided with revisionist no.1, who was already married with revisionist no.3. However, when the case has been settled amicably between the parties, it is not desirable to enter into the validity and legality of the marriage of opposite party no.2 with revisionist no.1. The compromise arrived between the parties on 13.07.2020, however, the impugned summoning order was passed on 08.02.2017 by the court below, hence at the time of passing of the impugned summoning order the case was not compromised between the parties.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties, and the dispute is between two private individuals and taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma (supra) and Nikhil Merchant (supra) that this court in exercise of its inherent power, can quash the proceeding . It is the matrimonial dispute between the parties and it apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably, therefore, there is no reason to proceed with the case and the present criminal revision is liable to be allowed.

¶15

8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

¶16

Hence, in view of the above, entire proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as impugned summoning order dated 08.02.2017 are hereby quashed.

¶17

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 3.7.2023/VKG

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shrawan Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrawan Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ashutosh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Adesh Yadav Alias Adesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 2 Others

Rajesh Jaiswal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Manish Verma Thru. His Father Kailash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Ram Asarey Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Anshu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.