HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 13
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 3775 of 2012
Applicant :- Daya Shankar Pandey And Ors.
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv K. Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Mayank Pandey,Rajendra Prasa Mishra
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No.131 of 2012 under Section 395 IPC.
2. Petitioner No.4 is ex-wife of respondent No.3. Because of matrimonial discord between the parties, several proceedings were instituted by petitioner No.4 and respondent No.3 against each other. With the intervention of the Court and the counsels representing the parties, they have settled their dispute finally.
3. A copy of agreement/settlement arrived at between the parties has been placed today along with application for compromise. In pursuance of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties, respondent No.3 handed over a bank draft of P.N.B. bearing No.191205 of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of petitioner No.4. Petitioner No.4 agreed that in future she will not claim any maintenance or alimony from respondent No.3. This is full and final settlement towards all her claims against respondent No.3.
4. The cases which have been instituted by petitioner No.4 and respondent No.3 against each other are mentioned in para 3 of the compromise application, which are as under:-
“(i) Criminal Case No. 248/2011 which is numbered as 1083/2015 under Section 323, Section504, Section506, Section498A I.P.C. and 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act, Dhruv Kumar Versus Shashi Kant Tiwari others, is pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-lll, Court No. 19, Sultanpur.
(ii) Criminal Misc. Case No. 55/2019 Suman Tiwari Vs. Shashi Kant Tiwari has been filed before the Family Judge, Court No.3, Sultanpur under Section 125 Cr.P.C. relating to P.S. Lambhua, District Sultanpur, in which, the date is fixed for 02.01.2020.
(iii) Case Crime No. 190/2011, Suman Vs. Shashi Kant Tiwari under under Section 406 Section1.P.C. relating to P.S. Dostpur, District Sultanpur is pending in the Court of llrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.19, Sultanpur.
(iv) Case Crime No. 71/11 Suman Vs. Shashi Kant Tiwari has been filed under SectionDomestic Violence Act at P.S. Dostpur, DistrictSultanpur which is also pending in the Court of IIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Sultanpur.
(v) A Regular Suit No. 530/2010 Shashi Kant Tiwari Vs. Suman under Section 13 Hindu Marriage and Adoption Act (Divorce) has been filed against the Petitioner No.4 namely Suman, which has been decided Ex-party.
(vi) A Criminal Case No. 02/2011 Shashi Kant Tiwari Vs. Suman has been filed by the Respondent No.2/Second Party under Guardians and SectionWards Act in the Court of District and Session Judge, Ambedkar Nagar for the adoption of his son Harsh Tiwari. 7.9.2012 in the favour of the Applicant/Respondent No.3.”
5. Petitioner No.4 and respondent No.3 are present in person who have been duly identified by their respective counsels. They agreed that the aforesaid proceedings may also be quashed by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Considering the fact that the parties have arrived at mutual settlement to put an end to the ongoing litigation between them which are result of matrimonial discord, divorce between the parties has already been taken place and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and ratio of the judgments in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings of the case mentioned in para 4 above as well as the proceedings in the present case as it would be an exercise in futility.
7. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the present petition is allowed and the proceedings and order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No.131 of 2012 under Section 395 IPC as well as proceedings of cases mentioned in para 4 are quashed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2019