Allowed

Smt. Shivi Kudesia and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024/1672/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under the IPC and SC/ST Act. The court held that the offence arose from a matrimonial dispute settled by a compromise agreement involving divorce proceedings and a monetary settlement. Relying on Apex Court precedents, the court quashed the proceedings as their continuation would be an exercise in futilit

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 96 of 2018 under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) SC/ST Act is quashed.

Smt. Shivi Kudesia and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46859

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1672 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Shivi Kudesia And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saryu Prasad Tiwari,Vijay Lakshmi Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, Ms. Vijay Lakshmi Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.96 of 2018 (Nishant Verma vs.Smt. Shivi Kudesia and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) R, S, SC/ST Act, Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow on the basis of compromise.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that since parties have settled their dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. He draw attention of the Court towards Annexure No.1, which is settlement agreement in which in paragraph 6 it is stated that both parties have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and to live separately in future and for the purpose of dissolution of marriage, the parties have filed petition for divorce bearing Case No.1782 of 2023, under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. It is further mentioned that the first party has also handed over a demand draft amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- to the second party towards one time full and final settlement.

¶9

On the other hand, Ms. Vijay Lakshmi Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the dispute between the parties has been settled before mediation center, she has no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court is quashed.

¶10

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶11

In the present case, the another Section 3(1) R, S, SC/ST Act is also involved.

¶12

In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a noncompoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim. The view expressed in the said judgement has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466 .

¶13

The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290] discussed and considered the power of this Court in respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties. Further, the three judges Bench of the Apex Court in case of Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2021 SC 5228 observed as:-

¶14

"15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.

¶15

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."

¶16

In view of the above, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the

¶17

FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

¶18

Therefore, in view of the above and considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290], Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2021 SC 5228, Ram Gopal, and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh with Krishnappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 834 as also considering the settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

¶19

In the light of the aforesaid, the above entire proceedings of the aforesaid Complaint Case No.96 of 2018 (Nishant Verma vs.Smt. Shivi Kudesia and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) R, S, SC/ST Act, Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow are hereby quashed.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant application u/s 482 is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 10.7.2024

¶22

Ajeet

¶23

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Shivi Kudesia and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shivi Kudesia and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. Lko. and and Another

Shrvan Kumar @ Shravan Kumar Arkvanshi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bablu Alias Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shailesh Kumar Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Ramesh Chandra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Adesh Tiwari Alias Harshit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others