Purnendu Awasthi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law And Justice Lko. And Another

Ms. Neelu Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute. The applicant is the husband the victim. False and aggravated assertions have been made in the F.I.R. against the applicant at the instigation of interested parties. The applicant did not torture the victim or demand dowry. All family members have been falsely roped in the criminal case out of vindictiveness and regardless of their involvement. The criminal proceedings are actuated by malafides and are being matrimonial dispute. leveraged Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported at (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Vs State of Bihar and others reported at (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein the Supreme Court has noticed the tendency of converting a matrimonial dispute into criminal prosecution. According to learned counsel the instant criminal case is in the teeth of law laid down in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Kahkashan Kausar (supra). Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a 2 A482 No. 7491 of 2025 judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs State of U.P. and others reported at 2023 SCC Online SC 947 wherein after taking note of the tendency to launch false prosecution in our judicial system it was held: "26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged." Ms. Neelu Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant 3 A482 No. 7491 of 2025 contends that the differences between the parties can be amicably resolved through the process of mediation. In case the learned trial court is allowed to proceed at this stage, it will increase further bad blood and the breach between the parties could well become beyond recall. At this stage attempts are liable to be be made to resolve the disputes between the parties through the process of Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant has prima facie merit. The parties will attempt a reconciliation with the assistance of the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The matter is referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, to attempt to bring about the process of conciliation between mediation. The following directions shall be executed by the respective parties: the parties through

1. The applicant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow within a period of one month.

2. Rs.4,000/- shall be released in favour of opposite party no.2 while Rs.1,000/- shall be retained by the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The amount shall be disbursed to the opposite party no. 2 immediately upon her appearance before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

3. The Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow shall fix the first date for mediation in the month of December, 2025 and issue notices to the parties accordingly.

4. The proceedings shall be concluded within a further period of three months from the date of initiation of the mediation 4 A482 No. 7491 of 2025 proceedings in December, 2025.

5. The Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow shall send a report before this Court. List immediately thereafter. Till the next date of listing, the entire proceedings of Case No. 19186 of 2024 (State vs. Purnendu Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 282 of 2022, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 of the I.P.C., and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sareni, District- Raebareli insofar as it relates to the applicant shall remain stayed. September 9, 2025 Vandit (Ajay Bhanot,J.)

Ms. Neelu Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the proceedings arise out of a matrimonial dispute. The applicant is the husband the victim. False and aggravated assertions have been made in the F.I.R. against the applicant at the instigation of interested parties. The applicant did not torture the victim or demand dowry. All family members have been falsely roped in the criminal case out of vindictiveness and regardless of their involvement. The criminal proceedings are actuated by malafides and are being matrimonial dispute. leveraged Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported at (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Vs State of Bihar and others reported at (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein the Supreme Court has noticed the tendency of converting a matrimonial dispute into criminal prosecution. According to learned counsel the instant criminal case is in the teeth of law laid down in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Kahkashan Kausar (supra). Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a 2 A482 No. 7491 of 2025 judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs State of U.P. and others reported at 2023 SCC Online SC 947 wherein after taking note of the tendency to launch false prosecution in our judicial system it was held: "26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged." Ms. Neelu Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant 3 A482 No. 7491 of 2025 contends that the differences between the parties can be amicably resolved through the process of mediation. In case the learned trial court is allowed to proceed at this stage, it will increase further bad blood and the breach between the parties could well become beyond recall. At this stage attempts are liable to be be made to resolve the disputes between the parties through the process of Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant has prima facie merit. The parties will attempt a reconciliation with the assistance of the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The matter is referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, to attempt to bring about the process of conciliation between mediation. The following directions shall be executed by the respective parties: the parties through

1. The applicant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow within a period of one month.

2. Rs.4,000/- shall be released in favour of opposite party no.2 while Rs.1,000/- shall be retained by the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The amount shall be disbursed to the opposite party no. 2 immediately upon her appearance before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

3. The Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow shall fix the first date for mediation in the month of December, 2025 and issue notices to the parties accordingly.

4. The proceedings shall be concluded within a further period of three months from the date of initiation of the mediation 4 A482 No. 7491 of 2025 proceedings in December, 2025.

5. The Mediation & Conciliation Centre, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow shall send a report before this Court. List immediately thereafter. Till the next date of listing, the entire proceedings of Case No. 19186 of 2024 (State vs. Purnendu Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 282 of 2022, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 of the I.P.C., and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sareni, District- Raebareli insofar as it relates to the applicant shall remain stayed. September 9, 2025 Vandit (Ajay Bhanot,J.)