HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3337 of 2004
Revisionist :- Raj Kumari And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
In spite of service of notice, opposite party No. 2 has not appeared before this Court.
The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 1.6.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 4427 of 2003 (Satyawati Vs.Chandra Shekhar and others), under Sectionsections 323, Section504, Section506, Section494, Section498A I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that apart from filing the above mentioned Complaint Case, the opposite party No. 2 has also initiated proceedings against the revisionist No. 5 under Section 125 Cr. P. C. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. came to be decided finally by the Court below by means of an order dated 14.3.2014. The said order was passed on the basis of a compromise application filed by the complainant Smt. Satyawati. The aforesaid compromise contains a recital that in future no legal proceedings shall be initiated against the opposite party. The husband revisionist No. 5 is the sole respondent in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. Placing reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, reported in 2015 (2) SCC, 721, it is urged that the compromise entered between the parties in a matrimonial dispute should be treated as a complete and comprehensive compromise to bring an end all the disputes between the parties. No exception can be taken in the present case. Apart from the above, the revisionists complainant herself is not responding to the notices issued by this Court.
In view of the above, this Court has no other option but to hear the revision ex-parte.
Upon perusal of the impugned summoning order in the light of the above decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionists, this Court is of the view that the complainant opposite party No. 2 appears to have abandoned the proceedings initiated by her. Furthermore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court no exception can be taken to the compromise so entered between the parties in the proceedings under section 125 Cr. P. C.
In view of the above, the present criminal revision succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned summoning order dated 1.6.2004 is set aside
Order Date :- 15.10.2019