Rajesh Tiwari vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 7 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.39045 of 2010
Arising Out of Complaint Case No. -2381 Year- 2006 Thana – District- MUZAFFARPUR

1. Kapildeo Tiwari S/O Late Sabhanand Tiwari Resident of Village Bhathawa
Mode, P.O. P.S. Kuchaikot, District Gopalganj.

2. Anita Tiwari W/O Gorakh Tiwari

3. Gorakh Tiwari S/o Sri Kapildeo Tiwari
Resident of Village Bhathawa Mode, P.O. P.S. Kuchaikot, District Gopalganj, at
present residing at L-55/B, First Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

…. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Bihar.

2. Smt. Jyoti Tiwari W/O Sri Rajesh Tiwari Resident of Village Bhathawa Mode,
P.O. P.S. Kuchaikot, District Gopalganj, At Present C/O Sri Nagendar Mishra,
Mohalla Majhauli Road (Jainagar), P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, District-
Muzaffarpur.

…. …. Opposite Parties
With

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39109 of 2010
Arising Out of Complaint Case No. -2381 Year- 2006 Thana – District- MUZAFFARPUR

Rajesh Tiwari, Son of Sri Kapildeo Tiwari, resident of village-Bhathawa Mode,
P.O. P.S.-Kuchaikot, District-Gopalganj at present residing at House No.304,
Divyajyoti Apartments, No. 1, 7th Cross, Srinivagallu, Bangalore-560047
…. …. Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Smt. Jyoti Tiwari, wife of Sri Rajesh Tiwari, resident of village-Bhathawa
Mode, P.O. + P.S.-Kuchaikot, District-Gopalganj at present C/o Sri Narendar
Mishra, Mohalla-Majhauli Road (Jaiprabha Nagar), P.S.-Kazi Mohammadpur,
District-Muzaffarpur.

…. …. Opposite Parties

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39045 of 2010 dt.07-09-2017
2

Appearance :

(In Cr.Misc. No.39045 of 2010)
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party no.2 : Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
(In Cr.Misc. No.39109 of 2010)
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party no.2 : Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 07-09-2017

In these two applications filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „Cr.P.C.‟), the common

challenge is to the summoning order dated 14.12.2006 passed in

Complaint Case No.2381 (C) of 2006 by which the learned Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur after finding a

prima facie case to be made out under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

summoned the petitioners to face trial.

2. In Cr. Misc. No.39109 of 2010, the petitioner is the

husband of the complainant whereas in Cr. Misc. No. 39045 of 2010,

the petitioners are the father-in-law, sister-in-law (Jethani) and

brother-in-law (Jeth) of the complainant.

3. It is submitted by Mrs. Sushmita Mishra, learned
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39045 of 2010 dt.07-09-2017
3

counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of the instant

petitions, the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the

court and a joint compromise petition on behalf of the petitioner

Rajesh Tiwari and the complainant (opposite party no.2) Smt. Jyoti

Tiwari has been filed in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No.321 of 2009

in which it has been admitted that she will not proceed with her case

filed against the petitioner, which is pending in the court of Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate (East), Muzaffarpur vide Tr. No.641

of 2016 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of

Complaint Case No.2381 of 2006 and the opposite party shall co-

operate in earlier disposal of the said case on the basis of

compromise. She has submitted that the aforesaid compromise

petition has been accepted by the learned Principal Judge, Family

Court, Muzaffapur and the matrimonial tie in between the petitioner

Rajesh Tiwari and the complainant Jyoti Tiwari has been dissolved

by a decree of divorce on the basis of joint compromise petition

dated 03.09.2016.

4. Mr. Vinay Kant Mani Tripathi, learned counsel

appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the contentions

advanced on behalf of the petitioners. He has conceded that all the

dispute between the parties have been resolved amicably and now the

complainant is no more interested in pursuing the complaint in
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39045 of 2010 dt.07-09-2017
4

question.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

6. The joint compromise petition on behalf of the

petitioner Rajesh Tiwari and the opposite party no.2 Smt. Jyoti

Tiwary filed in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No.321 of 2009 and the

judgment passed in the said matrimonial case by the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court have also been brought on record by

way of filing a supplementary affidavit. The terms of compromise as

narrated in the compromise petition filed in Matrimonial (Divorce)

Case No.321 of 2009 read as under:-

“(i) That the applicant shall pay Rs.10,00,000/- to
the O.P. against her past, present and future
maintenance as well as alimony as full and final
settlement this Rs.10,00,000/- shall be an additional
amount to Rs. 10,00,000/- which has already been
paid to the O.P. by the applicant in pursuance of
order dated 23.03.2009 passed by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India in Cr. Appeal No.545 of
2008.

(ii) That the applicant and the O.P. shall not claim
anything against each other except the aforesaid
amount ever.

(iii) That the applicant and the O.P. shall get their
marriage dissolved on the basis of compromise.

(iv) That the O.P. shall not proceed with her case
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39045 of 2010 dt.07-09-2017
5

filed against the applicant and others which is
pending in the court of S.D.J.M. (East),
Muzaffarpur vide Tr. No.641/16 U/S 498(A) I.P.C.
and 4 D.P. Act arising out of C.No.2381/2006 a
joint compromise petition shall also be filed in the
above described case and the O.P. shall co-operate
in earlier disposal of the said case on the basis of
compromise”.

7. The findings and order passed in the judgment

dated 14.09.2016 in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No.321 of 2009 by

the learned Principal Judge, Family Court read as under:-

“FINDINGS
During proceeding of this case, both parties
filed compromise petition on 03.09.2016 duly
signed by both the parties. As per terms settled
between the parties, the applicant Rajesh Tiwari has
already paid Rs.10 lacs in pursuance of order dated
23.03.2009 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of
India in Cr. Appeal No.545/2008 and Rs.10 lacs
here for her maintenance and Rs.10 lacs to her
daughter for her better future. He has also filed Bank
draft of Rs.10 lacs in favour of respondent and Rs.10
lacs in favour of daughter. They have also agreed
that if decree of divorce is passed in the light of
compromise petition, both parties have got no
objection on it.

In support of its contention, the applicant
Rajesh Tiwari and respondent Jyoti Tiwari have
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39045 of 2010 dt.07-09-2017
6

filed their deposition on affidavit stating the same
facts on 05.09.2016 accepting the terms and
conditions of the compromise petition.

Thus, on consideration of entire facts and
circumstances and the evidences I find that there is
no chance of resumption of their conjugal life and
there appears no collusion for getting decree of
divorce. As both parties have settled their marital
dispute, so, all the issues are answered in terms of
compromise dated 03.09.2016.

Accordingly, it is, therefore,
ORDERED
that matrimonial tie in between the applicant
Rajesh Tiwari and Jyoti Tiwari is hereby dissolved
by a decree of divorce with their mutual agreement
dated 03.09.2016 effective from the date of the
decree. Let the Demand Drafts be handed over to the
respondent without any delay. Let a copy be also
served to both parties without any cost. O/C is
directed to prepare decree accordingly.”

8. From the arguments advanced on behalf of the

parties and the pleadings made in the supplementary affidavit, it

would be evident that the entire controversy had arisen due to

domestic and matrimonial discord itself and since the matter has

amicably been settled and the complainant is not willing to pursue

the matter and the parties have decided to part ways, in the opinion
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39045 of 2010 dt.07-09-2017
7

of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the

complaint to proceed.

9. Consequently, and keeping in mind the ratio laid

down by the Supreme Court in its decisions in B.S. Joshi Ors. Vs.

State of Haryana Anr. [(2003) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant

Vs. C.B.I. [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Manoj Sharma Vs. State [(2008)

16 SCC 1], Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2010) 15 SCC 118]

and Jitendra Raghubanshi and others vs. Babita Raghubanshi

and Another [(2013) 4 SCC 58], the Complaint Case No.2381 (C)

of 2006 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby

quashed.

10. The applications stand allowed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Sanjeet/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.09.2017
Transmission 11.09.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *