HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R.

Court No. – 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 8960 of 2011

Applicant :- Anurag Dwivedi And Another

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Prasad Tripathi,Lal Mani Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Sanjay Srivastava

Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Lal Mani Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Kripa Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. Supplementary affidavit dated 19.12.2018 filed on behalf of the applicants today in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8960 of 2011 after service of copy upon the learned counsel for the opposite parties, is taken on record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that on account of matrimonial dispute between the parties total eight criminal misc. applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing nos. 8960 of 2011, 24791 of 2013, 24273 of 2013, 22435 of 2011, 24272 of 2013, 203 of 2016, 22436 of 2011 and 24790 of 2013 are pending before this Court. All the aforesaid applications filed by husband and his other relatives are connected with leading application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8960 of 2011 (Anurag Dwivedi and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) and are listed today before this Court. It is further submitted that on referring the matter by this Court on 23.3.2011 for mediation, all the dispute between the parties concerned have been settled long back on 3.7.2013.

4. In view of above, all the above cases are being decided together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taking into consideration the settlement dated 3.7.2013 and common order is being passed in leading application no. 8960 of 2011.

5. Before considering the submission advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to mention basic facts of the case and the relief claimed by the applicants in all the aforesaid pending applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Basic facts

6. Anurag Dwivedi (applicant no.1in application no. 8960 of 2011) is husband of Smt. Deep Mala Dwivedi. Their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals on 20.4.2003. On account of matrimonial dispute and acrimonious relation between them Smt. Deep Mala Dwivedi (wife) left her matrimonial house in February, 2005. Both the side raised allegations against each other and tried to justify themselves on their part. Ultimately, on account of frayed relation between the parties concerned, from the side of wife one FIR was lodged on 21.05.2005 against the husband and his family members as Case Crime No. 231 of 2005 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat and another FIR was lodged on 27.08.2005 against the husband and his family members as Case Crime No. 303 of 2005, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar.

7. Husband Anurag Dwivedi filed a case against his wife before the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Kanpur Nagar registered as Case No. 298 of 2005, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (Anurag Dwivedi Vs. Smt. Deep Mala Dwivedi).

8. Husband Anurag Dwivedi also filed a complaint case against his father-in-law and others before Judicial Magistrate Ist Kanpur Dehat registered as Case No. 338 of 2005 (Anurag Dwivedi Vs. Umesh Chandra Dwivedi and others), under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC.

9. Wife Smt. Deep Mala filed a case against her husband Anurag Dwivedi in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar on 18.11.2006 for judicial separation, registered as Case No. 1124 of 2006 (Smt. Deep Mala Dwivedi Vs. Anurag Dwivedi), under Sections 10 and 27 of Hindu Marriage Act.

10. Wife Smt. Deep Mala also filed case against her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 5 Kanpur Dehat registered as Case no. 147 of 2006 which was allowed in her favour on 8.1.2007 and the husband was directed to pay maintenance amount Rs. 1200 per month to the wife.

11. Wife Smt. Deep Mala also filed another case against her husband before Additional Chief Judicial Ist Kanpur Dehat registered as Case No. 1674 of 2008 (Deep Mala Dwivedi Vs. Anurag Dwivedi), under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

12. Brother of wife Smt. Deep Mala also lodged FIR against the husband (Anurag Dwivedi) and his father as Case Crime No. 311 of 2009 under Sections 323, 325, 506 IPC at P.S. Swaroop Nagar District Kanpur Nagar.

13. Wife Smt. Deep Mala had again filed case on 5.10.2009 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before ACJM Court No. 5 Kanpur Dehat.

14. Father of wife also lodged another FIR under Sections 504, 506 IPC against husband and his father at P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.

15. On 9.3.2010 wife again filed complaint case no. 785 of 2010 before the Court of ACJM Ist Kanpur Nagar against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 506 and 406 IPC.

Detail of pending cases before High Court

16. On account of aforesaid matrimonial dispute/litigations between the parties concerned following criminal misc. applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed from the side of husband and his other family members in different matters at different stage.

(i) Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 8960 of 2011

In this application, applicants, who are husband and father-in-law of opposite party no.2 have prayed to quash the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 785 of 2010 (Smt. Deepmala Dwivedi Vs. Anurag Dwivedi and another), under Sections 323, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ist, Kanpur Nagar.

(ii) Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 24791 of 2013

In this application, applicant, who is husband of opposite party no.3 has prayed to quash the proceeding of Case No. 873 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.311 of 2009, under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar (State Vs. Anurag Dwivedi) pending before A.C.M.M. IIIrd Kanpur Nagar.

(iii) Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 24273 of 2013

In this application, applicant, who is husband of opposite party no.2 has prayed to quash the proceeding of Case No. 197 of 2009, under Section 127 Cr.P.C., P.S. Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat (Smt. Deep Mala Vs. Anurag Dwivedi) pending before the A.C.J.M. Ist Kanpur Dehat.

(iv) Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 22435 of 2011

In this application, applicants, who are husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law of daughter of opposite party no. 2 have prayed to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No.1632 of 2008 (State Vs. Anurag Dwivedi and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Shivli, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-Ist, District Ramabai Nagar.

(v) Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 24272 of 2013

In this application, applicant, who is husband of opposite party no.2 has prayed to quash the proceeding of Misc. Case No. 144 of 2007, under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. arising out of Case No. 147 of 2006, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat (Smt. Deep Mala Vs. Anurag Dwivedi) pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Ist Kanpur Dehat.

(vi) Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 203 of 2016

In this application, applicant, who are sister-in-law and uncle of husband of daughter of opposite party no. 2 have prayed to quash the proceeding of Case No. 1682 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 231 of 2005, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat (State Vs. Anurag Dwivedi and others) pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Ist Kanpur Dehat.

(vii) Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 22436 of 2011

In this application, applicants, who are husband and father-in-law of opposite party no.2 have prayed to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1161 of 2007 (Smt. Deep Mala Dwivedi Vs. Anurag Dwivedi and another), under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Shivli pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Kanpur Dehat.

(viii) Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 24790 of 2013

In this application, applicant, who is husband of opposite party no.3 has prayed to quash the proceeding of Case No. 200 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 362 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar (State Vs. Anurag Dwivedi) pending in the court of Special C.J.M. Kanpur Nagar.

17. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on account of matrimonial dispute between the parties, this matter was referred to Mediation vide order dated 23.3.2011 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.8960 of 2011, which is reproduced herein below:-

“Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that this case may be sent to Mediation Centre for the purpose of settlement between the parties for which the applicants are ready to deposit the cost.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that applicants shall deposit Rs. 10,000/- within two weeks from today in the account head of Registrar General, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad. In case, the aforesaid amount is deposited the notice shall be issued to O.P. No.2 returnable within a period of four weeks. The three fourth of the above mentioned deposited amount shall be paid to O.P. No. 2 as expenses. This case shall be sent to Mediation Centre for further proceedings.

After proceedings of the Mediation Centre, list this case before this Court on 26.5.2011.Till then no coercive step shall be taken against the applicants in Complaint Case No. 785 of 2010 under sections 323, 506 and 406 I.P.C. P.S. Barra district Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of A.C.M.M.- 1st Kanpur Nagar in case the receipt of the aforesaid deposited amount is filed before the court concerned.

List on 26.5.2011 for orders.”

18. Pursuant to order dated 23.3.2011 of this Court, parties concerned appeared several times before the Mediation and Conciliation Center, High Court, Allahabad and on 03.07.2013 final settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto. The report of Mediation and Conciliation Centre is reproduced herein below:-

“ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into on 03.07.2013, between Sri Anurag Dwivedi (Applicant no.1-husband) and Smt. Deep Mala Dwivedi (O.P. No.2-wife).

WHEREAS

1. Dispute and differences had arisen between the Parties hereto and Crl. Misc. Application No. 8960 of 2011 was filed before the Hon’ble High Court.

2. The matter was referred to mediation/conciliation vide order dated 23.03.2011 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Singh.

3. The parties agreed that Mr. Afzal Ahmad and Ms. Shobha Srivastava, Advocates would act as their Conciliators/Mediators in Mediation Case No. 3361 of 2011.

4. Several joint and separate meetings were held during the process of Conciliation/Mediation on 17.08.2011, 14.09.2011, 28.09.2011, 11.10.2011, 22.11.2011, 20.12.2011, 18.01.2012, 01.02.2012, 29.02.2012, 28.03.2012, 02.05.2012, 23.05.2012, 04.07.2012, 26.07.2012, 22.08.2012, 12.09.2012, 26.09.2012, 03.10.2012, 17.10.2012, 07.11.2012, 06.02.2013, 20.02.2013, 06.03.2013, 20.03.2013, 17.04.2013, 22.05.2013 and 03.07.2013 and the parties have with the assistance of the Mediator/Conciliator voluntarily arrived at an amicable solution resolving the abovementioned disputes and differences.

5. The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the presence of the Mediator/Conciliator.

6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:

a. Sri Anurag Dwivedi (Applicant no.1-husband) and Smt. Deep Mala Dwivedi (O.P. No.2-wife) were married on 20.04.2003. They have no issue out of the said wedlock. The opposite party no.2 is living with her parents since year 2005, due to alleged dispute between the husband and wife.

b. On 11.10.2011, the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 have agreed to live together in pursuance of the interim settlement, but they could not get along.

c. On 12.09.2012, the opposite party no. 2 has informed that she does not want to live with the applicant no.1 and she wants divorce. However, the opposite party no.2 has agreed to take Rs. 5,75,000/- (Rupees five lakhs seventy five thousand) as a permanent alimony inclusive of maintenance etc. The applicant has paid Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs) vide draft no. 697035 dated 03.10.2012 issued by Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank, main branch, Kanpur, in favour of smt. Deep Mala.

d. The parties have also entered into an interim settlement by which both the parties have to appear before the court below and file a divorce petition on 29.10.2012, but the said condition was not fulfilled by the parties.

e. That now the applicant no.1 has agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy five thousand) to the opposite party no.2 before the Hon’ble Court on the first date of listing.

f. That meanwhile, both the parties have agreed to file a divorce petition before the competent court below, on 23rd July 2013.

g. That in case the parties file the divorce petition then the opposite party will withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed against applicant no.1 and his other family members after receiving the balance amount.

h. That if any party fails to comply with the settlement agreement, the aggrieved party may take action against the other in accordance with law.

i. That opposite party no.2 undertakes that she will refund the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to applicant no.1, if she will not file the divorce petition on 23.07.2013 before the Hon’ble Court on the first date of listing.

7. By signing this Agreement the Parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to Crl. Misc. Application No. 8960 of 2011 and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation.”

19. On submitting the above settlement report dated 3.7.2013 by the Mediation and Conciliation Center before this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8960 of 2011, this Court vide order dated 19.9.2018 passed the following order:-

“1. Learned counsel for the parties admitted that the dispute had been settled by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre vide Settlement Agreement dated 3.07.2013, whereunder the applicant No.1 was required to pay the opposite party No.2 a Sum of Rs. 5,75,000/-. It is also submitted that amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- were paid to opposite party No.2. Learned counsel for the parties are at variance as to the reason for non payment of Rs. 3,75,000/-. Without entering into merits of the rival claim in that regard, it is seen that more than five years have passed and the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- has not been paid by the applicant.

2. Consequently, it has been proposed by the court that subject to the total payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- on the next date to be fixed in the present proceeding, by means of bank draft in favour of the opposite party No.2, the present proceeding may be decided in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 3.07.2013.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 states that his client would be agreeable to such an offer and that subject to such payment being made on the next date the present applications may be allowed in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 3.07.2013 and that opposite party No.2 would not further pursue any other claim against the applicants.

4. Accordingly, list this along with all connected matter on 08.10.2018 in top 10 cases.

5. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of listing for the same reasons contained in the aforesaid order.

6. It is also expected by the opposite party No.2 that she shall file a personal affidavit accepting the proposal as noted above.”

20. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit dated 19.12.2018 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8960 of 2011 mentioning in paragraph no.3 of the said affidavit that applicant no.1 has deposited Rs. 4,50,000/- by means of Bank Draft in favour of opposite party no.2 in the light of settlement dated 03.07.2013. In paragraph nos. 4 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit averment has been made that in compliance of order dated 19.9.2018 of this Court parties concerned moved their joint affidavit under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act before the concerned family court on 20.11.2018. Copy of the said affidavit appended as Annexure no.1 to the supplementary affidavit. Pursuant to the said joint affidavit dated 20.11.2018 divorce decree has been passed by the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2018 on mutual agreement between the parties. Copy of the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2018 appended as Annexure no.2 to the supplementary affidavit.

21. Record reveals that there is an endorsement of the office note dated 1.11.2018, which is reproduced herein as under:-

“Sealed envelope, containing Demand Draft No. 704820 dated 04.10.2018 of Rs. 4,50,000/- (four lacs fifty thousand) only in the name of Deepmala, deposited in compliance of orders dated 08.10.2018 and 24.10.2018 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 203 of 2016 – Kumari Rachna @ Jagriti another Vs. State of U.P. another [Criminal Misc. Application No. 8960 of 2011 – Anurag Dwivedi another Vs. State of U.P. others]”

Submissions on behalf of the applicants

22. Learned counsel for the applicants after placing the above facts with humbleness submitted that since the settlement took place between the parties and applicant no.1 has complied the order dated 19.9.2018 of this Court in true sense and spirit of law as directed by this Court. The learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that he is not pressing the applications on merit on account of compromise/settlement made between the parties, therefore, all the proceedings against the applicants initiated by wife of applicant no.1 or her father against the applicants (husband and his family members) regarding which eight criminal misc. applications are pending before this Court are liable to be quashed.

Submissions on behalf of opposite parties

23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 did not dispute the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants and also stated at the Bar that settlement between the parties has already been arrived and now opposite party no.2 (wife) and her family members have no grievance against the applicants of all the aforesaid eight pending criminal misc. application and they also do not want to continue the criminal proceedings against the them. It is submitted that in case, proceedings of all the pending criminal cases against the applicants/accused are quashed by this Court, the wife and her family members have no objection. The learned counsel for the wife also prayed to quash all the proceedings against the applicants.

24. Learned A.G.A. also does not dispute the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the applicants and opposite party no.2.

Discussion of decided case laws

25. The Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others V. Sambhaji-rao Chandrojirao Angre and others (1988) 1 SCC 692 held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court, may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings.

26. The observation of the Apex Court in G. V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others (2000) 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the Courts, it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly extent which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about re-oproachment are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and it that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different Courts.

27. Keeping in mind the sage advice of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675 to Courts to encourage settlement of marital disputes between contesting spouses so that they do not lose their youthful years in chasing interminable litigations and reiterating the following lines from paragraph 10 of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, I think the interests of justice would be met if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end. The lines read:

“In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences. Answer clearly has to be in ‘negative’. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.”

28. In B.S. Joshi’s case it has also been observed in paragraph 8, that in an appropriate case for securing the ends of justice, the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C or even in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in paragraph no.14 it has further observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from setting earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.

29. The Apex Court in another decision in case of Smt Swati Verma v. Rajan Verma and others AIR 2004 SC 261, where similar to the present case, the dispute including the criminal and divorce litigation between the sparring spouses had been decided on the basis of a compromise and where again the husband had paid Rs. 6 lakhs to his wife for the settlement, the apex Court had quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498A and 406 IPC before the CJM, rendering the application under section 482 Cr.P.C before the Allahabad High Court infructuous. It had also granted the decree of divorce, rendering the divorce suit pending before the ADJ at Delhi infructuous, In that case in paragraph 7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed:

“7. Having perused the records placed before us we are satisfied that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and with a view to restore good relationship and to put a quietus to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigation, so that they may live peacefully hereafter, and on the request of the parties, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we allow the application for divorce by mutual consent filed before us under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act and declare that the marriage solemnized between the consenting parties on 13th June, 2001 at Delhi is hereby dissolved, and they are granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent.”

30. Since, on behalf of the applicants, the applications have not been pressed on merit, therefore, the detail of each case on merit is not required to be mentioned. Considering the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court as discussed above and settlement dated 03.07.2013 between the parties, all the aforesaid cases are liable to be allowed in terms of compromise between the parties concerned and criminal proceeding against the applicants, which are under challenge in all the above criminal misc. applications are liable to be quashed.

Conclusion

31. In view of above, the following orders are passed:-

(i) Proceeding of Complaint Case No. 785 of 2010 (Smt. Deepmala Dwivedi Vs. Anurag Dwivedi and another), under Sections 323, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ist, Kanpur Nagar is hereby quashed. Application no. 8960 of 2011 is allowed.

(ii) Proceeding of Case No. 873 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.311 of 2009, under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar (State Vs. Anurag Dwivedi) pending before A.C.M.M. IIIrd Kanpur Nagar is hereby quashed. Application no. 24791 of 2013 is allowed.

(iii) Proceeding of Case No. 197 of 2009, under Section 127 Cr.P.C., P.S. Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat (Smt. Deep Mala Vs. Anurag Dwivedi) pending before the A.C.J.M. Ist Kanpur Dehat is hereby quashed. Application No. 24273 of 2013 is allowed.

(iv) Proceeding of Criminal Case No.1632 of 2008 (State Vs. Anurag Dwivedi and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Shivli, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-Ist, District Ramabai Nagar is hereby quashed. Application No. 22435 of 2011 is allowed.

(v) Proceeding of Misc. Case No. 144 of 2007, under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. arising out of Case No. 147 of 2006, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat (Smt. Deep Mala Vs. Anurag Dwivedi) pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Ist Kanpur Dehat is hereby quashed. Application no. 24272 of 2013 is allowed.

(vi) Proceeding of Case No. 1682 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 231 of 2005, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Shivli, District Kanpur Dehat (State Vs. Anurag Dwivedi and others) pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Ist Kanpur Dehat is hereby quashed. Application no. 203 of 2016 is allowed.

(vii) Proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1161 of 2007 (Smt. Deep Mala Dwivedi Vs. Anurag Dwivedi and another), under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Shivli pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Kanpur Dehat is hereby quashed. Application No. 22436 of 2011 is allowed.

(viii) Proceeding of Case No. 200 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 362 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar (State Vs. Anurag Dwivedi) pending in the court of Special C.J.M. Kanpur Nagar is hereby quashed. Application No. 24790 of 2013 is allowed.

32. The demand draft no. 704820 dated 4.10.2018 of Rs. 4,50,000/- of Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank Kanpur Dehat in the name of Deep Mala deposited by the applicant no.1 before the Registrar General of this Court be released in favour of Deep Mala wife of Anurag Dwivedi immediately.

33. Copy of this order be placed in the records of all the aforesaid connected criminal misc. applications. Office shall communicate this order to the court concerned.

Order Date :- 8.1.2019

AK Pandey