Sanskriti Das v. Avishek Bodhak) under Section

"(i) to set aside the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by Judicial Lucknow Magistrate III, whereby the cognizance was taken and process was issued and order dated 04.08.2020 whereby bailable warrant worth Rs.10,000/- was issued and further quashed the charge- sheet no.1/2019 filed in 0078/2019 U/Ss 498-A/323/504/313 FIR No.1 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, P.S- Alambagh, District-Lucknow which otherwise also is a complete abuse of process and in the alternative the entire criminal case may be sent to the local limits of the Magistrate under whose jurisdiction P.S-Bantara, Howarha, Kolkata."

3. It is stated that on account of matrimonial discord/dispute the opposite party no.2 (wife of applicant no.1) lodged an FIR/Case Crime No.0078 of 2019 on 15.03.2019 making allegations therein to attract the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 313 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Alambagh, District- Lucknow.

4. It is stated that the marriage between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 21.01.2018 and on account of the dispute arose between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.2 left her matrimonial home and thereafter on 15.03.2019 lodged the FIR indicated above as also instituted a Case No.584 of 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, which subsequently was transferred to the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Lucknow.

5. It is further stated that in the case instituted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., after settlement of dispute betwen the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, a compromise was filed, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.

6. It is further stated that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties a total amount to the tune of Rs.28,00,000/- has been provided to opposite party no.2.

7. At this stage, on being asked, Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra holding brief of Shri Rudraksh Bajpai, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admitted the aforesaid.

8. It is further stated that in terms of the settlement/compromise deed, Case No.584 of 2019 (Sanskriti Das Vs. Avishek Bodhak) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Case No.384 of 2019 instituted under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and another case under Section 27 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 registered before the District Judge, Howrah being Misc. Case No.173 of 2024 (Avishek Bodhak & others Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) & others) have been decided and this fact can be deduced from the copy of the orders passed in the said cases annexed as Annexure Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed today.

9. It is further submitted that the present case which relates to Case Crime No.0078 of 2019 may also be decided in terms of the compromise and the proceedings arising out of same pending before the Magistrate namely Judicial Magistrate- III, Lucknow be set aside.

10. Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra holding brief of Shri Rudraksh Bajpai, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, also stated in the same tune.

11. 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 in view of the settlement and the observations made hereinabove. Consequently, the entire proceedings of FIR/Case Crime No.0078/2019 (Supra), indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.

12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"(i) to set aside the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by Judicial Lucknow Magistrate III, whereby the cognizance was taken and process was issued and order dated 04.08.2020 whereby bailable warrant worth Rs.10,000/- was issued and further quashed the charge- sheet no.1/2019 filed in 0078/2019 U/Ss 498-A/323/504/313 FIR No.1 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, P.S- Alambagh, District-Lucknow which otherwise also is a complete abuse of process and in the alternative the entire criminal case may be sent to the local limits of the Magistrate under whose jurisdiction P.S-Bantara, Howarha, Kolkata."

3. It is stated that on account of matrimonial discord/dispute the opposite party no.2 (wife of applicant no.1) lodged an FIR/Case Crime No.0078 of 2019 on 15.03.2019 making allegations therein to attract the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 313 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Alambagh, District- Lucknow.

4. It is stated that the marriage between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 21.01.2018 and on account of the dispute arose between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.2 left her matrimonial home and thereafter on 15.03.2019 lodged the FIR indicated above as also instituted a Case No.584 of 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, which subsequently was transferred to the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Lucknow.

5. It is further stated that in the case instituted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., after settlement of dispute betwen the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2, a compromise was filed, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.

6. It is further stated that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties a total amount to the tune of Rs.28,00,000/- has been provided to opposite party no.2.

7. At this stage, on being asked, Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra holding brief of Shri Rudraksh Bajpai, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admitted the aforesaid.

8. It is further stated that in terms of the settlement/compromise deed, Case No.584 of 2019 (Sanskriti Das Vs. Avishek Bodhak) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Case No.384 of 2019 instituted under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and another case under Section 27 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 registered before the District Judge, Howrah being Misc. Case No.173 of 2024 (Avishek Bodhak & others Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) & others) have been decided and this fact can be deduced from the copy of the orders passed in the said cases annexed as Annexure Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed today.

9. It is further submitted that the present case which relates to Case Crime No.0078 of 2019 may also be decided in terms of the compromise and the proceedings arising out of same pending before the Magistrate namely Judicial Magistrate- III, Lucknow be set aside.

10. Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra holding brief of Shri Rudraksh Bajpai, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, also stated in the same tune.

11. 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 in view of the settlement and the observations made hereinabove. Consequently, the entire proceedings of FIR/Case Crime No.0078/2019 (Supra), indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.

12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench