# Deepshika v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 882
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 314 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepshika-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51390
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482 - Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - Section - 13-B - Application U/s 482
filed by informant - for quashing the charge
sheet, summoning order, and entire criminal
proceedings, against her husband and in-laws -
Matrimonial dispute - FIR - was lodge with
allegations of dowry-harassment - Investigation
- Settlement - Suit under section 13-B of HM
Act was filed - Chargesheet - Summoning order
- court finds that, both parties amicably settled
their disputes and filed for mutual divorce under
Section 13B of HM Act - therefore, held that the
informant can seek quashing if it serves justice
and prevents abuse of process, especially since
the pending criminal case was delaying the
divorce settlement and payment of the agreed
alimony - consequently, Application is allowed -
impugned summoning order and the entire
proceedings are hereby quashed.
(Para - 7, 8, 12)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

## Text

882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad All alias
Deepak and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya
v. State of Gujarat as noted above and in
terms of the observations contained in the
present judgment. The Magistrate shall
take a considered decision expeditiously
within a period of one month from the date
of the present order."

31. Therefore, from the abovementioned legal position, it is clear that
while framing charges, the Court must
consider all the police reports, and the same
were duly considered in the impugned
order dated 13.12.2023 and merely making
reference of the first chargesheet dated
22.05.2022, which was earlier not filed in
Court but subsequently filed along with the
supplementary
chargesheet
dated
14.06.2022 will not make the impugned
order perverse. Therefore, this Court holds
that there is sufficient compliance with the
direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vinay Tyagi' case (supra) and
Luckose Zachariah's case (supra) while
passing the impugned orders.

32. In view of the above observations
and findings, this Court is of the view that
there is no illegality in the impugned order
dated 13.12.2023, as well as order dated
02.08.2023; therefore present application is
rejected with a further direction to the
Court below to conclude the trial as
expeditiously as possible without giving
unnecessary adjournment to any of the
parties and decide the same in time-bound
manner, preferably within a period of one
year.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 882
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 314 of 2024

Deepshika ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rakesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482 - Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - Section - 13-B - Application U/s 482
filed by informant - for quashing the charge
sheet, summoning order, and entire criminal
proceedings, against her husband and in-laws -
Matrimonial dispute - FIR - was lodge with
allegations of dowry-harassment - Investigation
- Settlement - Suit under section 13-B of HM
Act was filed - Chargesheet - Summoning order
- court finds that, both parties amicably settled
their disputes and filed for mutual divorce under
Section 13B of HM Act - therefore, held that the
informant can seek quashing if it serves justice
and prevents abuse of process, especially since
the pending criminal case was delaying the
divorce settlement and payment of the agreed
alimony - consequently, Application is allowed -
impugned summoning order and the entire
proceedings are hereby quashed.
(Para - 7, 8, 12)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla,
the learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for
the State.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
informant herself has approached this Court
1 All. Deepshika Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
883
seeking quashing of charge sheet dated
14.08.2023 submitted in furtherance of an
FIR No. 65/2023 dated 13.05.2022 lodged
by the applicant alleging harassment of the
applicant by the opposite party nos. 2 to 5,
who are her husband and his family
members, for demanding dowry, the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
23.11.2023 and the entire proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 125014/2023 pending in
the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Div.)/FTC
Crime
Against
Women,
Lucknow.

3. After filing of the FIR, the parties
amicably settled their disputes and filed a
suit under Section 13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 on 30.12.2021 wherein
it was agreed that the opposite party no. 2
Chandan Rai will pay the agreed amount
towards alimony to the applicant and the
articles given at the time of marriage will
be returned by both the sides. It is also one
of the terms of the suit filed under Section
13B of the Hindu Marriage Act that the
applicant will get proceedings of the case
instituted on the basis of FIR lodged by her,
closed by herself.

4. The learned AGA-I has raised
objection against the maintainability of the
applicant by the informant herself and he
has submitted that once the charge sheet
has been filed and the trial court has taken
cognizance
of
the
offence
and
has
summoned the accused-opposite parties no.
2 to 5, it is the opposite parties no. 2 to 5
themselves, who can challenge the validity
of the summoning order and the informant
cannot challenge the order and the
proceedings.

5. I have considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case and the
statements made by the learned AGA.

6. Section 482 Cr.P.C. recognizes the
inherent powers of High Court to make
such orders as may be necessary to prevent
the abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. For
invoking the inherent powers of the High
Court, the mere existence of apprehended
abuse of the process of the court or a need
for passing of order to secure the ends of
justice is necessary and there is no
limitation as to who can bring the
circumstances
justifying
exercise
of
inherent powers to the notice of this Court.

7. The peculiar facts of the present
case indicate that the applicant, who is the
informant, is also being prejudiced by the
continuance of the criminal proceedings
instituted
by
herself
as
unless
the
proceedings are quashed, the suit under
Section 13B filed by the applicant and the
opposite party no. 2 cannot be decided. The
balance agreed settlement money i.e. Rs. 7
lakh will be paid to the applicant on the
date of final disposal of the suit.

8. The final disposal of the suit under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and
payment of Rs. 7 lakh to the applicant is
being delayed because of pendency of the
criminal proceedings instituted by the
applicant. Therefore, in view of the
aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the view that the
application filed by the applicant-informant
is maintainable and I proceed to examine
the merit of the case.

9. In the FIR lodged on 13.05.2022,
the applicant had stated that she got
married to the opposite party no. 2 on
31.01.2019 but thereafter she was harassed
by the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 for
demanding dowry. Soon after lodging of
the FIR, the parties settled their dispute
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amicably and they filed a suit for divorce
by mutual consent under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act. It is stated in the
coplaint that the opposite party no. 2 will
pay a sum of Rs. 12 lakh towards one time
settlement, out of which Rs. 5 lakh were
paid on the date of filing of the suit and the
balance amount of Rs. 7 lakh would be paid
on the date of final disposal of the suit.

10. It is also stated in the plaint that
the parties have returned some of the
articles given at the time of marriage to
each other and rest of the articles will be
exchanged before final decision of the suit.

11. The plaint further states that the
parities will get the proceedings instituted
by
them
against
each
other
closed
themselves.

12. The learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that the applicant
had given a copy of the plaint under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act to
the Investigating Officer with a request to
close the investigation and submit a final
report but he did not accept the same and
submitted a charge sheet and the Court has
taken cognizance of the offence and
summoned opposite party nos. 2 to 5 to
face trial by means of the impugned order
dated 23.11.2023. The learned counsel for
the applicant has submitted that because of
the pendency of criminal cases, the
proceedings under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are not being
decided finally and the balance amount of
one time settlement is not being paid to the
applicant and some articles are also yet to
be exchanged between the parties before
final disposal of the suit.

13. As the prayer made in the
application is in favour of the opposite
party nos. 2 to 5 and it will not adversely
affect them, there is no need to issued
notice to the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and
the notice is dispensed with.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts, the
application is allowed.

15.

The
charge
sheet
dated
14.08.2023 submitted in furtherance of an
FIR No. 65/2023 dated 13.05.2022, the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
23.11.2023 and the entire proceeding of
Criminal Case No. 125014/2023 pending in
the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Div.)/FTC
Crime
Against
Women,
Lucknow, are hereby quashed.

----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 884
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 12.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2969 of 2016

Neeraj Jain ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Raj Kumar Kesari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Birendra Kumar Mishra, Sri
Abhyuday Mehrotra

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 - Sections 138 & 139 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Applicant challenged summoning order dated
24.09.2015 in Complaint Case No. 5972 of 2015
under Section 138 of NI Act, claiming cheque
was issued as security, not for discharge of