Bhagwati Prasad And 4 Others v. State of U.P & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 18 Jan 2023
- Bench
- SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 323, 498A, 504, 506
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 s. 12
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4033 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali District Lalitpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur is quashed insofar as it relates to applicants.…
Judgment
Heard Sri Fakhruzzaman learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2.
Present application has been filed to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4033 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali District Lalitpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur.
At the outset, learned counsel for parties states, present prosecution had emerged from a matrimonial discord between the parties. That dispute has been resolved. In such changed circumstance, opposite party No. 2 does not wish to press the present application. Arising from the same matrimonial discord, Application U/S 482 No. 4408 of 2021, Bhagwati Prasad and Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others came to be allowed vide the below quoted order dated 19.3.2021:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1 and Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate, who has entered appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 362 of 2017, Smt. Anita and another v. Bhagwati Prasad and others, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.)/ J.M. Court, Lalitpur.
It is submitted that the applicant no.1 is husband, applicant no.2 is father- in-law, applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law, applicant no. 4 is brother-in-law and applicant no. 5 is Jethani of opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case had been lodged against the applicant no. 1 and his family members but neither there was any criminal intent on the part of any party nor any criminal offence had actually occurred. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:- (i) the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties; (ii) the complaint case was filed by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged; (iii) there never was any criminal intent on the part of the applicants nor any offence as alleged had ever occurred; (iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos; (v) therefore, in the changed circumstance, the opposite party no.
2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants. It is also stated that compromise deed dated 21.01.2019 had been filed by the parties before the learned court below. Copy of the compromise is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit in support of the present application. It further appears that the learned court below has verified the aforesaid compromise vide order dated 30.09.2019. In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed, it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto estranged couple and their families. Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being matrimonial discord that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their entire satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any longer.
Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), the proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby set aside. The present application is accordingly allowed. "
It is agreed between the parties that present prosecution must meet the same fate owing to matrimonial discord having been settled.
The above submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants has been confirmed by the learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2.
In such circumstances, though no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any further, however, no firm conclusion may be reached, at this stage, as to complete falsity of the allegations made against the applicants. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus stands allowed.
The the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4033 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali District Lalitpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur is quashed insofar as it relates to applicants. Order Date :- 18.1.2023 Faraz FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 323, 498A, 504, 506; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 18 Jan 2023. The bench was SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.