Single judge allowed the petition for quashing of the criminal order dated 5.2.2011 taking cognizance under sections 498A IPC and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, holding that the dispute was resolved via mutual consent divorce by the Supreme Court.
Quashed the order dated 5.2.2011 taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 563©/2010.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32479 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Arun Kumar Singh Son Of Dr. I.N. Singh Resident Of Patliputra Path, West Of Bsnl Exchange, Rajendra Nagar, Police Station :- Kadamkuan, District - Patna 2. Manju Singh Wife Of Arun Kumar Singh Resident Of Patliputra Path, West Of Bsnl Exchange, Rajendra Nagar, Police Station :- Kadamkuan, District - Patna 3. Nitin Kumar Singh Son Of Sri Arun Kumar Singh Resident Of : Patliputra Path, West Of Bsnl Exchange, Rajendra Nagar, Police Station : - Kadamkuan, District : Patna At Present Residing At 002, ;Shree Vari Classic' No. 2, 2nd Cross, 'B' Block, Vinayaknagar, Airport Road, Bangalore - 560017 .... .... Petitioner/s
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Si For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt.Gulnar Begum (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 20-11-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband of opposite party no.2. The present application has been preferred by them seeking quashing of the order dated 5.2.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 563©/2010 whereby cognizance was taken under section 498A of the Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Without going into the merit of the case, learned
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32479 of 2012 (4) dt.20-11-2014
2/2
counsel for the petitioners points out that a transfer petition was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on behalf of one of the parties. Thereafter the matter was sent to Supreme Court Mediation Centre. Under the efforts of the mediator the dispute between the parties was resolved. In the transfer petition the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by invoking the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The petition preferred by one of the parties in dispute had already become infructuous.
Thus in view of the fact that there has been a divorce by mutual consent and the parties have settled their dispute under the aegis of Supreme Court Mediation Centre, there is no need to allow this case to continue.
In view of the aforesaid development in this case, the order taking cognizance dated 5.2.2011 is set aside.
This application is allowed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
haque/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings impacting the matrimonial dispute should be quashed following the grant of mutual consent divorce by the Supreme Court.
Whether the existence of a settlement under the Supreme Court Mediation Centre renders the ongoing criminal proceedings infructuous.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Arun Kumar Singh and others
The State Of Bihar
Pallavi Singh
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
