Lucknow, in case of State v. Ashish Kumar Singh and others pending before the Court of Additio

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present application has been filed seeking following main relief:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned in the accompanying petition/application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and its affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire proceedings arising out of charge sheet dated 16.09.2017 bearing charge sheet no 01 in case crime no 419/2016 U/s: 498-A/323/504/506 of IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Ashiyana, District-Lucknow, in case of State vs Ashish Kumar Singh and others pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial summoning/cognizance order dated 22/10/2018. Lucknow and also quash Magistrate-5, It is further prayed that the proceeding arising out of charge sheet dated 16.09.2017 bearing charge sheet no 01 in case crime no 419/2016 U/s: 498-A/323/504/506 of IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Ashiyana, District-Lucknow, in case of State vs Ashish Kumar Singh and others pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5, Lucknow, may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the present petition." The facts of the case indicated in paragraph 10 to 16 of instant application, being relevant, are extracted herein-under :- "10. That after lodging of First Information Report against petitioners, family members of both families with help of relatives arrived at amicable settlement and resolved their dispute and entered into compromise.

11. That as per oral settlement between petitioner no 1 and opposite party no 3, they filed a suit u/s 13-B H.M. Act on 23/11/2017 before Principal Judge Family Court. Lucknow. The copy of suit u/s 13-B H.M. Act is annexed herewith as Annexure No 4.

12. That petitioner no 1 and opposite party no 3 filed their affidavit before Family Court in support of suit u/s 13-B H.M. Act. The copy of affidavit are annexed herewith as Annexure No 5 and 6.

13. That aforesaid suit bearing Regular suit No 867/2018 has been allowed and Learned Family Court has granted divorce vide order dated 24.05.2018. The Copy of Order dated 24.05.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure No 7.

14. That here it is relevant to point out that in the suit opposite party no 3 has stated that she will withdraw the present criminal proceedings, and it was one of the conditions for resolution of dispute, but the same has still not been withdrawn nor sh is co-operating in withdrawing of present criminal proceedings.

15. That in the affidavit filed before Family Court in Suit u/s 13-B H.M. Act, she again stated that she will withdraw the pending, criminal proceedings pending against petitioners.

16. That here it is relevant to point out that opposite party no 3 did not withdraw the criminal proceedings as per the settlement, as stated in the Suit u/s 13-B H.M. Act." It is stated that in view of the settlement arrived between the parties the case under Section 13(1)(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was instituted, registered as Case No. 867 of 2018 (Pooja Vs. Ashish Kumar Singh), and the same has been decided in terms of settlement arrived by concerned Court i.e. Additional Civil and Session Judge/FTC II, Additional Family Judge, Lucknow vide order dated 24.05.2018. It is further stated that in the instant application, the opposite party no. 3 has also filed an affidavit and a perusal of the same would indicate that if the present case in issue is decided in terms of settlement arrived she would have no objection. The relevant para of the affidavit are extracted herein-under :- "मम शपथथिननी शनीमतनी पपूजजा थससिंह , आयय लगभग 34 वरर, पत्ननी शनी रजननीश कयमजार, पयतनी शनी अननल कयमजार थससिंह , ननवजासनी 2/225, ससेक्टर-ओ, मजानसररोवर यरोजनजा, एल०डनी०ए० कजालरोननी, कजानपयर ररोड, जनपद-लखनऊ, वतरमजान ननवजाथसननी ए नवसिंग 902, ननकरोन इननफिननटनी नवललडसिंग, वसई ईस्ट, मयसिंबई, महजारजाषष, शपथिपपूवरक ननम्नथलथखत कथिन करतनी हहसिं नक- 1. यह नक शपथथिननी उपररोक्त यजानचिकजा मम नवपकनी ससिं० 3 हहै तथिजा यजानचिकजा कसे सभनी तथ्ययों और पररलस्थिनतययों ससे पपूररतयजा वजानकफि हहै। 2. यह नक शपथथिननी कजा नववजाह नदनजासिंक 01.06.2015 करो नहन्दपू रनीनत ररवजाज कसे अनयसजार यजाचिनी कसे सजाथि लखनऊ मम सम्पन्न हहआ थिजा। थजसकसे पश्चिजात यजाचिनी व यजाचिनी कसे पररवजार वजालयों ककी प्रतजाड़नजा ककी वजह ससे शपथथिननी नसे मय०अ०ससिं० - 419/2016 असिंतगरत धजारजा 498-A, 323, 504, 506 द०प्र०ससिं० व 3/4दहसेज प्रनतरसेध अथधननयम, थिजानजा आनशयजानजा, थजलजा लखनऊ दजर करजायजा , थजसमम अररोपपत दजाथखल हरो चियकजा हहै , थजसकसे नबरुद्ध यजाचिनी गर दजारजा उपररोक्त यजानचिकजा दजाथखल नकयजा गयजा हहै। 3. यह नक शपथथिननी व यजाचिनी ससिंख्यजा 1 नसे आपसनी समझझौतजा कसे अनयसजार 13 बनी नहसिंदपू नववजाह अथधननयम कसे तहत आदसेश नदनजासिंनकत 24.05.2018 दजारजा नववजाह नवच्छसेद करजा थलयजा हहै, तथिजा दपूसरनी जगह पयननः नववजाह कर थलयजा हहै। 4. यह नक यजाचिनी ससिंख्यजा 1 व शपथथिननी कसे मध्य समझझौतजा हरो चियकजा हहै , थजसकसे अनयसजार दरोनयों पक एक दपूसरसे कसे नबरुद्ध दजाथखल/दजर सभनी वजादयों करो वजापस लसे लमगसे। 5. यह नक यजाचिनी ससिंख्यजा 1 व शपथथिननी कसे मध्य हहए समझझौतजा कसे अनयसजार शपथथिननी अब मय०अ०ससिं०- 419/2016 असिंतगरत धजारजा 498-A, 323, 504, 506 द०प्र०ससिं० व दहसेज प्रनतरसेध अथधननयम, थिजानजा आनशयजानजा, थजलजा लखनऊ पर बल दसेनजा नहह चिजाहतनी हहै। 6. यह नक यजाचिनी ससिंख्यजा 1 व शपथथिननी कसे मध्य वहैवजानहक ससिंबसिंध खत्म हरोनसे कसे बजाद अब करोई नबवजाद/नशकजायत शसेर नहह रह गयजा हहै। 7. यह नक यजाचिनीगर दजारजा दजाथखल उपररोक्त यजानचिकजा कसे नबरुद्ध शपथथिननी करो करोई आपनत नहह हहै।" Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 419/2016, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance forthwith. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Mohit Singh/-

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present application has been filed seeking following main relief:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned in the accompanying petition/application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and its affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire proceedings arising out of charge sheet dated 16.09.2017 bearing charge sheet no 01 in case crime no 419/2016 U/s: 498-A/323/504/506 of IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Ashiyana, District-Lucknow, in case of State vs Ashish Kumar Singh and others pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial summoning/cognizance order dated 22/10/2018. Lucknow and also quash Magistrate-5, It is further prayed that the proceeding arising out of charge sheet dated 16.09.2017 bearing charge sheet no 01 in case crime no 419/2016 U/s: 498-A/323/504/506 of IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Ashiyana, District-Lucknow, in case of State vs Ashish Kumar Singh and others pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5, Lucknow, may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the present petition." The facts of the case indicated in paragraph 10 to 16 of instant application, being relevant, are extracted herein-under :- "10. That after lodging of First Information Report against petitioners, family members of both families with help of relatives arrived at amicable settlement and resolved their dispute and entered into compromise.

11. That as per oral settlement between petitioner no 1 and opposite party no 3, they filed a suit u/s 13-B H.M. Act on 23/11/2017 before Principal Judge Family Court. Lucknow. The copy of suit u/s 13-B H.M. Act is annexed herewith as Annexure No 4.

12. That petitioner no 1 and opposite party no 3 filed their affidavit before Family Court in support of suit u/s 13-B H.M. Act. The copy of affidavit are annexed herewith as Annexure No 5 and 6.

13. That aforesaid suit bearing Regular suit No 867/2018 has been allowed and Learned Family Court has granted divorce vide order dated 24.05.2018. The Copy of Order dated 24.05.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure No 7.

14. That here it is relevant to point out that in the suit opposite party no 3 has stated that she will withdraw the present criminal proceedings, and it was one of the conditions for resolution of dispute, but the same has still not been withdrawn nor sh is co-operating in withdrawing of present criminal proceedings.

15. That in the affidavit filed before Family Court in Suit u/s 13-B H.M. Act, she again stated that she will withdraw the pending, criminal proceedings pending against petitioners.

16. That here it is relevant to point out that opposite party no 3 did not withdraw the criminal proceedings as per the settlement, as stated in the Suit u/s 13-B H.M. Act." It is stated that in view of the settlement arrived between the parties the case under Section 13(1)(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was instituted, registered as Case No. 867 of 2018 (Pooja Vs. Ashish Kumar Singh), and the same has been decided in terms of settlement arrived by concerned Court i.e. Additional Civil and Session Judge/FTC II, Additional Family Judge, Lucknow vide order dated 24.05.2018. It is further stated that in the instant application, the opposite party no. 3 has also filed an affidavit and a perusal of the same would indicate that if the present case in issue is decided in terms of settlement arrived she would have no objection. The relevant para of the affidavit are extracted herein-under :- "मम शपथथिननी शनीमतनी पपूजजा थससिंह , आयय लगभग 34 वरर, पत्ननी शनी रजननीश कयमजार, पयतनी शनी अननल कयमजार थससिंह , ननवजासनी 2/225, ससेक्टर-ओ, मजानसररोवर यरोजनजा, एल०डनी०ए० कजालरोननी, कजानपयर ररोड, जनपद-लखनऊ, वतरमजान ननवजाथसननी ए नवसिंग 902, ननकरोन इननफिननटनी नवललडसिंग, वसई ईस्ट, मयसिंबई, महजारजाषष, शपथिपपूवरक ननम्नथलथखत कथिन करतनी हहसिं नक- 1. यह नक शपथथिननी उपररोक्त यजानचिकजा मम नवपकनी ससिं० 3 हहै तथिजा यजानचिकजा कसे सभनी तथ्ययों और पररलस्थिनतययों ससे पपूररतयजा वजानकफि हहै। 2. यह नक शपथथिननी कजा नववजाह नदनजासिंक 01.06.2015 करो नहन्दपू रनीनत ररवजाज कसे अनयसजार यजाचिनी कसे सजाथि लखनऊ मम सम्पन्न हहआ थिजा। थजसकसे पश्चिजात यजाचिनी व यजाचिनी कसे पररवजार वजालयों ककी प्रतजाड़नजा ककी वजह ससे शपथथिननी नसे मय०अ०ससिं० - 419/2016 असिंतगरत धजारजा 498-A, 323, 504, 506 द०प्र०ससिं० व 3/4दहसेज प्रनतरसेध अथधननयम, थिजानजा आनशयजानजा, थजलजा लखनऊ दजर करजायजा , थजसमम अररोपपत दजाथखल हरो चियकजा हहै , थजसकसे नबरुद्ध यजाचिनी गर दजारजा उपररोक्त यजानचिकजा दजाथखल नकयजा गयजा हहै। 3. यह नक शपथथिननी व यजाचिनी ससिंख्यजा 1 नसे आपसनी समझझौतजा कसे अनयसजार 13 बनी नहसिंदपू नववजाह अथधननयम कसे तहत आदसेश नदनजासिंनकत 24.05.2018 दजारजा नववजाह नवच्छसेद करजा थलयजा हहै, तथिजा दपूसरनी जगह पयननः नववजाह कर थलयजा हहै। 4. यह नक यजाचिनी ससिंख्यजा 1 व शपथथिननी कसे मध्य समझझौतजा हरो चियकजा हहै , थजसकसे अनयसजार दरोनयों पक एक दपूसरसे कसे नबरुद्ध दजाथखल/दजर सभनी वजादयों करो वजापस लसे लमगसे। 5. यह नक यजाचिनी ससिंख्यजा 1 व शपथथिननी कसे मध्य हहए समझझौतजा कसे अनयसजार शपथथिननी अब मय०अ०ससिं०- 419/2016 असिंतगरत धजारजा 498-A, 323, 504, 506 द०प्र०ससिं० व दहसेज प्रनतरसेध अथधननयम, थिजानजा आनशयजानजा, थजलजा लखनऊ पर बल दसेनजा नहह चिजाहतनी हहै। 6. यह नक यजाचिनी ससिंख्यजा 1 व शपथथिननी कसे मध्य वहैवजानहक ससिंबसिंध खत्म हरोनसे कसे बजाद अब करोई नबवजाद/नशकजायत शसेर नहह रह गयजा हहै। 7. यह नक यजाचिनीगर दजारजा दजाथखल उपररोक्त यजानचिकजा कसे नबरुद्ध शपथथिननी करो करोई आपनत नहह हहै।" Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 419/2016, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance forthwith. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Mohit Singh/-