# Amit Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 125
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-02-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 4273 of 2010
- **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verama
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-kumar-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41622
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 482Quashing of Criminal proceeding-offence
under section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. With
3⁄4
D.P.
Act
matrimonial
dispute
informant
already
got
rejected
her
maintenance proceeding after having
Rs.100000/-towards
one
time
maintenance- the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A to present the torture of a
woman-
if
the
criminal
proceeding
allowed
to
continue-would
be
a
pediment in settlement of dispute apart
from harassment -proceeding quashed.

Held: Para 9

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion
that it would be an abuse of the process
of the Court, if the criminal proceeding of
the aforesaid criminal case is allowed to
continue. Therefore, to do the complete
justice, the proceedings of the said
criminal case should be quashed by this
Court in its inherent jurisdiction under
section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
2003(46)ACC779,
2006(30JIC
135
(Alld.),
2005(51)ACC217.

## Text

1 All] Amit Kumar and others V. State of U.P. and another
125
18. Respectfully following the above
decisions, we decide the present Writ
Petition giving similar directions.

The Writ Petition is accordingly
allowed.

19. The respondents are directed to
give benefit of the Government Order
dated 25th August, 1999 in terms of the
option exercised by the petitioner within
three months of the filing of the certified
copy of this Order before the Director of
Higher
Education,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Allahabad.

20. On the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the parties will
bear their own costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERAMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 4273 of
2010

Amit Kumar and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and another. ..Opposite party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Brij Lal Shukla

Counsel for the opposite party:
Sri S.K. Upadhyay
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 482Quashing of Criminal proceeding-offence
under section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. With
3⁄4
D.P.
Act
matrimonial
dispute
informant
already
got
rejected
her
maintenance proceeding after having
Rs.100000/-towards
one
time
maintenance- the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A to present the torture of a
woman-
if
the
criminal
proceeding
allowed
to
continue-would
be
a
pediment in settlement of dispute apart
from harassment -proceeding quashed.

Held: Para 9

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion
that it would be an abuse of the process
of the Court, if the criminal proceeding of
the aforesaid criminal case is allowed to
continue. Therefore, to do the complete
justice, the proceedings of the said
criminal case should be quashed by this
Court in its inherent jurisdiction under
section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
2003(46)ACC779,
2006(30JIC
135
(Alld.),
2005(51)ACC217.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.)

1. By means of this application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
(in
short,
'the
Cr.P.C.'), the applicants (1) Amit Kumar,
(2) Smt. Mahendri, (3) Smt. Savita, (4)
Smt. Rajnees, (5) Smt. Mamchandra, (6)
Amrish, (7) Rajesh and (8) Suneel have
invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court
for quashing of the proceedings of
criminal case no. 2603 of 2009 (State Vs.
Amit Kumar and others) under section
498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act
arising out of crime no. 242 of 2008, P.S.
Mahila Thana, Meerut pending in the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the
facts leading to the filing of the
application under section 482 Cr.P.C., in
brief, are that marriage of applicant no. 1
Amit Kumar and opposite party no. 2
Smt. Aadesh Kumari took place on
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
06.03.2006,
but
subsequently
some
misunderstanding
and
disputes
were
developed between the couple, as a result
of which Smt. Aadesh Kumari lodged an
FIR against the applicants at P.S. Mahila
Thana, Meerut on 24.02.2008, where a
case under section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C.
and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at crime
no. 242 of 2008. After investigation,
charge sheet has been submitted against
the applicants, on which cognizance has
been taken and on the basis of that
chargesheet, criminal case no. 2603 of
2009
was
registered
against
the
applicants, which is pending in the Court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. An
application for granting maintenance
under section 125 Cr.P.C. was also moved
by opposite party no. 2 Smt. Aadesh
Kumari against her husband Amit Kumar
(applicant no. 1) in Family Court, Meeurt,
which was registered as case no. 44 of
2009. During the pendency of these cases,
due to intervention of some well-wishers
and relatives, the parties settled their
dispute, in consequence whereof the
applicant no. 1 paid Rs.1,00,000/- to Smt.
Aadesh Kumari as lumpsum maintenance,
on the basis of which, the application
under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been
rejected vide order dated 23.08.2009
(annexure-5) passed by the Family Court,
Meerut. As a result of the compromise
entered into between the parties, the
applicants have invoked the inherent
jurisdiction of this court to quash the
proceeding of criminal case referred in
para (1) above.

3. I have heard arguments of Sri Brij
Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the
applicants, Sri S. K. Upadhyay, learned
counsel appearing for the opposite party
no. 2 and learned AGA for the State of
U.P.

4. The parties have filed joint
affidavit annexing therewith a photostat
copy of the compromise entered into
between
them.
In
para
5
of
the
compromise, it is stated that the parties
would get criminal case no. 2603 of 2009
arising out of case crime no. 242 of 2008
pending in the court of CJM, Meerut
dismissed. In the joint affidavit, which has
been filed by the applicant no. 1 Amit
Kumar
and
Smt.
Aadesh
Kumari
(opposite party no. 2), it is stated that the
parties have settled their matrimonial
dispute amicably out of the court.

5. Drawing my attention towards the
case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of
Haryana and another 2003(46) ACC
779, it was submitted by the learned
counsel for the applicants that in view of
the compromise entered into between the
parties, this Court should invoke its
inherent jurisdiction to quash the entire
proceedings of criminal case no. 2603 of
2009 (State Vs. Amit Kumar and others)
under section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and
3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime no. 242
of 2008, P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut
pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Meerut,
as
matrimonial
dispute has been settled by the parties and
with their consent, they have separated
themselves and whole time maintenance
also been paid to opposite party no. 2
Smt. Aadesh Kumari in the proceeding
under section 125 Cr.P.C.

6. Since the parties have settled their
matrimonial dispute amicably, hence this
Court can quash the proceedings of
aforesaid criminal case in its inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. S.
Joshi Vs. State of U.P (supra) has made
1 All] Jeesan and others V. State of U.P.
127
the following observations in para 12 of
the report at page 784:-

"There is no doubt that the object of
introducing Chapter XX-A containing
section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code
was to prevent the torture to a woman by
her husband or by relatives of her
husband. Section 498-A was added with
a view to punishing a husband and his
relatives who harass or torture the wife
to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy
unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical
view
would
be
counter
productive
and
would
act
against
interests of women and against the object
for which this provision was added.
There is every likelihood that nonexercise of inherent power to quash the
proceedings to meet the ends of justice
would prevent women from settling
earlier. That is not the object of Chapter
XXA of Indian Penal Code."

7. It is also held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in para 13 of the report of B.
S. Joshi Vs. State of U.P (supra) that the
High Court in exercise of its inherent
powers can quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint and section 320 of the
Code does not limit or affect the powers
under section 482 of the Code.

8. In the case of Ausaf Ahmad
Abbasi vs. State of U.P. And another
2006 (30 JIC 135 (Alld.)), the proceeding
of criminal case under section 498A, 323,
504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act was
quashed on the basis of the compromise
entered
into
between
the
parties.
Reference in this regard may be made to
the case of Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit
Kumar Agrawal & others 2005 (51) ACC
217 also, in which the Hon'ble Apex
Court quashed the proceedings of the
criminal case under section 498A, 323,
506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, due to the
compromise entered into between the
parties in the proceeding under section
125 Cr.P.C.

9. In view of the discussion made
herein-above, I am of the considered
opinion that it would be an abuse of the
process of the Court, if the criminal
proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case
is allowed to continue. Therefore, to do
the complete justice, the proceedings of
the said criminal case should be quashed
by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction
under section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. Consequently, the application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The
proceeding of criminal case no. 2603 of
2009 (State Vs. Amit Kumar and others)
under section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and
3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime no. 242
of 2008, P.S. Mahila Thana, Meerut
pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Meerut is hereby quashed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TEWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.4458 of 2003

Jeesan and others

...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri P.N. Misra
Sri Apul Misra
Sri R.P. Yadav
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan
Sri Raghubans Sahai