# Case No. 16470 of 2009, State v. Ajay

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1490
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 29911 of 2009
- **Bench:** S.C. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/case-no-16470-of-2009-state-v-ajay-41788
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482prayer to quash charge sheet offence
under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C.-matrimonial
dispute-before
mediation center-parties comes to terms
of settlement-agreement executed-acted
upon
by
joint
settlement
affidavitconsidering divorce degree by mutual
consent-purely
personal
in
nature
dispute-no
possibility
of
prosecution
success-charge sheet along with entire
criminal proceeding quashed.

Held: Para-8

Considering the fact that the subject
matter
of
the
FIR,
subsequent
investigation, filing of the charge sheet
submitted by the police are in relation to
a
matrimonial
dispute
between
the
applicants and opposite party no. 2 and
the dispute now stands voluntarily,
mutually and amicably settled between
the
parties
vide
Joint
Settlement
Affidavit dated 18.4.2010. I see no
purpose
in
continuing
the
criminal
proceedings
arising
out
of
FIR
in
question. Moreover the parties have also
obtained a decree of divorce and all the
disputes between them have come to an
end by mutual consent. The dispute
between the parties is of a purely
personal
nature.
After
compromise
between the parties, keeping the matter
alive with no possibility of a result in
favour of the prosecution is a luxury for
the Court.
Case Law discussed:
(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 464

## Text

1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

working
at
Tehsil
Sadar
Ballia,
consequent
order
was
passed
on
24.5.2012 relieving them including two
petitioners. Transfer order and relieving
order in this writ petition has also been
challenged on the same grounds on which
it was challenged in the earlier writ
petition. This writ petition is also
dismissed on the same grounds on which
earlier writ petition has been dismissed.
Petitioners should also join within a week
otherwise adverse entries shall be made
and disciplinary proceedings if considered
necessary may also be initiated against
them.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.112012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 29911 of
2009

Ajay Veer Singh and others

 ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. and another

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482prayer to quash charge sheet offence
under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C.-matrimonial
dispute-before
mediation center-parties comes to terms
of settlement-agreement executed-acted
upon
by
joint
settlement
affidavitconsidering divorce degree by mutual
consent-purely
personal
in
nature
dispute-no
possibility
of
prosecution
success-charge sheet along with entire
criminal proceeding quashed.

Held: Para-8

Considering the fact that the subject
matter
of
the
FIR,
subsequent
investigation, filing of the charge sheet
submitted by the police are in relation to
a
matrimonial
dispute
between
the
applicants and opposite party no. 2 and
the dispute now stands voluntarily,
mutually and amicably settled between
the
parties
vide
Joint
Settlement
Affidavit dated 18.4.2010. I see no
purpose
in
continuing
the
criminal
proceedings
arising
out
of
FIR
in
question. Moreover the parties have also
obtained a decree of divorce and all the
disputes between them have come to an
end by mutual consent. The dispute
between the parties is of a purely
personal
nature.
After
compromise
between the parties, keeping the matter
alive with no possibility of a result in
favour of the prosecution is a luxury for
the Court.
Case Law discussed:
(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 464

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal, J.)

1. This is an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a
prayer to quash charge-sheet in Criminal
Case No. 16470 of 2009, State Vs. Ajay
Veer Singh & others, under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and D.P. Act
arising out of case crime no. 849 of
2009,
P.S.
Kavi
Nagar,
DistrictGhaziabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned AGA for the
State.

3. The applicant no. 1 Ajay Veer
Singh is the husband of opposite party
no. 2. The applicants no. 2 to 6 are
3 All] Ajay Veer Singh and others V. State of U.P. and another

1491
mother, father, brother, sister and brother
in-law of applicant no. 1. The opposite
party no. 2 lodged FIR against the
applicants
alleging
harassment
on
account of demand of dowry whereupon,
investigation
ensued
and
after
investigation,
the
police
submitted
impugned
charge-sheet
against
the
applicants.

4. Since it was a matrimonial
dispute, vide order dated 15.12.2009
passed by Ho'ble Sheo Kumar Singh, J,
the matter was referred to Mediation and
Reconciliation Centre of this Court. In
proceedings before the mediation centre,
parties came to terms and settlementagreement was executed on 18.4.2010,
which is on record.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants submitted that in pursuance of
settlement-agreement, bank drafts for a
sum of Rs. 9 lacs have been deposited in
the Court of C.J.M., Ghaziabad through
11 bank drafts. A certified copy of the
office report from the office of C.J.M. ,
Ghaziabad is annexure no. 1 to the
supplementary affidavit dated 30.9.2010.
Opposite party filed a petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
before Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Ghaziabad,
which
was
allowed
in
accordance
with
the
settlementagreement executed before mediation
centre of this Court and the marriage of
applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2
was dissolved be a decree of divorce. A
certified copy of the judgment in divorce
petition no. 873 of 2010, Smt. Sophiya
Vs. Ajay Veer Singh passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad on
19.7.2010 is annexure no. 2 to the
aforesaid supplementary affidavit. These
documents
shows
that
settlementagreement executed before Mediation
and Reconciliation Centre of this Court
has been acted upon by the parties.

6. It was agreed between the parties
through settlement-agreement that a sum
of Rs. 9 lacs would be paid to opposite
party no. 2 and they agreed to divorce by
mutual consent. Clause-g of para 6 of the
settlement-agreement is as follows :-

"That let this settlement be placed
before this Hon'ble Court who would
pass appropriate order with regard to
pending criminal proceedings before
C.J.M., Ghaziabad bearing Crl. Case
No. 1647 of 2009, u/s 498A, 323, 504,
506 IPC and D.P. Act, P.S. Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad keeping in view that the
parties have entered into a compromise
and Ms. Sophia is now no more
interested in pursuing the criminal
proceedings against her husband Ajay
Veer Singh only after she receives Rs.
Nine lacs and decree of divorce is passed
between them".

7. Offence under Section 498A IPC
and Section 3/4 D.P. Act are not
compoundable.
However,
the
Apex
Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot
Vs. State of Punjab (2008) 2 Supreme
Court Cases (Cri.) 464 observed as under
:-

"We need to emphasise that it is
perhaps advisable that in disputes where
the question involved is of a pure
personal
nature,
the
court
should
ordinarily accept the terms of the
compromise
even
in
criminal
proceedings as keeping the matter alive
with no possibility of a result in favour of
the prosecution is a luxury which the
courts, grossly overburdened as they are,
1492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

cannot afford and that the time so saved
can be utilised in deciding more effective
and meaningful litigation. This is a
common sense approach to the matter
based on ground of realities and bereft
of the technicalities of the law".

8. Considering the fact that the
subject matter of the FIR, subsequent
investigation, filing of the charge sheet
submitted by the police are in relation to
a matrimonial dispute between the
applicants and opposite party no. 2 and
the dispute now stands voluntarily,
mutually and amicably settled between
the
parties
vide
Joint
Settlement
Affidavit dated 18.4.2010. I see no
purpose in continuing the criminal
proceedings arising out of FIR in
question. Moreover the parties have also
obtained a decree of divorce and all the
disputes between them have come to an
end by mutual consent. The dispute
between the parties is of a purely
personal
nature.
After
compromise
between the parties, keeping the matter
alive with no possibility of a result in
favour of the prosecution is a luxury for
the Court.

9.

I,
therefore,
allow
the
application. The impugned charge-sheet
and entire proceedings in criminal case
no.16470 of 2009, under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506 IPC and D.P. Act , State
Vs. Ajay Vir Singh & others, P.S. Kavi
Nagar, pending in the Court of C.J.M.
Ghaziabad are quashed and the matter
stands finally resolved in terms of
compromise.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34603 of 2012

Smt. Nisha Devi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226cancellation
of
appointment
as
Anganwari Worker-G.O. Dated 16.12.03
relied-speaks the applicant should be
permanent
resident
of-same
village
where-Anganwari
Center
runningadmittedly petitioner belongs to another
village of same Nyay Panchayat-no scope
of alteration of mandatory conditions
regarding same village-held-cancellation
proper.

Held: Para-9

 In the present case the Government
order makes it very clear that the
incumbent, who does not belong to same
village in which the Anganbari Center is
running,
cannot
be
selected
and
appointed.
It
is
not
disputed
that
petitioner does not belong to the same
village but the village to which petitioner
is permanent resident is a part of Gram
Panchayat which includes the village in
which Anganbari Center is situated. That
being so, once it is admitted that
petitioner is not the permanent resident
of village in which Anganbari Center is
situated, in view of specific conditions
contained in Government Order dated
16.12.2003, the impugned order cannot