Disposed

Satyawati Maurya and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023A482/5749/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash matrimonial criminal proceedings. Court directed Trial Court to refer parties to a mediation committee within 15 days and stayed coercive action for two months or till report submission, relying on Rajesh Sharma guidelines. Mediation failure allows fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Refer parties to mediation committee within 15 days; stay coercive action for two months or until report submission; liberty to file fresh 482 application if mediation fails.

Satyawati Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5749 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Satyawati Maurya And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Maurya,Avnish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2848 of 2019 (Raj Kumar Maurya Vs. Satyawati Maurya and Another), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are the wife and father-in-law of opposite party no. 2. He, therefore, submits that the dispute between the parties is a matrimonial dispute and in case the matter is referred for mediation, the parties may get an opportunity to amicably settle their dispute. He, therefore, submits that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be in the interest of both the parties that the parties may be referred for mediation to the Mediation Centre of concerned District.

¶8

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 disputes covered under section 498-A IPC. Paragraph 19 of the judgement which contains the directions so issued, is reproduced hereunder:-

¶9

"19. Thus, after careful consideration of the whole issue, we consider it fit to give following directions :-

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter.

¶16

(g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected.

¶17

(h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable.

¶20

(k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper.

¶21

(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;

¶22

(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;

¶23

(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;

¶24

(v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine;

¶25

(vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death."

¶29

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 the committee constituted for mediation at District concerned within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶30

The mediation centre shall submit its report within one month from the date of receipt of the case before the learned Magistrate.

¶31

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. If bail application is filed by the applicants, the same shall be decided according to the direction contained in Rajesh Sharma's case (supra) .

¶32

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.

¶33

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stands disposed of.

¶34

Order Date :- 28.3.2023 SK Srivastava

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyawati Maurya and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyawati Maurya and Another 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

Nasir Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hans Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jeetu @ Gyanendra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another