# Rakesh Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1642
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 22554 of 2012
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42856
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section 482-Quashing of criminal
proceeding-offence under Section 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C.-readwith 3/4 D.P. Actbefore
District
Mediation
Center-both
decided
to
live
together-considering
matrimonial dispute-keeping in view of law
laid down by Apex Court in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil
Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Gian Singh
cases-all criminal proceeding quashed.

Held: Para-8 & 9

## Text

1642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Here in this case, the prescribed
authority has held that as during the
pendency of the release application, the
tenant has not made an effort to search out
any alternative accommodation, therefore the
comparative hardship of the landlord would
be greater. The appellate authority has not
addressed itself on the point for the reason
that the need of the landlord was not found to
be pressing and bonafide.

12. After going through the entire
judgment of the appellate authority and
record, I find that the appellate authority has
erred in holding that the need of the landlord
is not bonafide. Therefore, the impugned
judgment passed by the appellate authority
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The
writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned
judgment
and
order
dated
18.3.2009, passed by Additional District
Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi, is hereby
quashed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 22554 of
2012

Rakesh Kumar & Ors.... Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mahendra KUmar Sharma, Sri Pavan
Kishore

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C.-Section 482-Quashing of criminal
proceeding-offence under Section 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C.-readwith 3/4 D.P. Actbefore
District
Mediation
Center-both
decided
to
live
together-considering
matrimonial dispute-keeping in view of law
laid down by Apex Court in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil
Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Gian Singh
cases-all criminal proceeding quashed.

Held: Para-8 & 9
8. In the aforesaid circumstances of the
case at hand the court itself had referred
the matter to the mediation which has
fructified into positive result. A broken
house has come back to life again, it
shall be not only be abuse of the court's
process but shall also be a travesty of
justice, if even in such circumstances,
where husband and wife started living
together, this court cold shoulders them
and forces them once again to join the
issue and lock horns with each other.

9. The existence of Mediation Centre has
found its full vindication and the parties
have amicably settled the controversy
tormenting their lives so far. If the
proceedings of lower court are still
allowed to go on, it is apparent that the
same shall be a sheer abuse of the
court's process. The dockets of the
pending cases are already bursting on
their seams and the lower Courts must
be allowed to engage themselves in
more fruitful judicial exercise and not be
saddled with matters like the one at
hand whose fate is already sealed.

Case Law discussed:
(2003)4 SCC 675; (2008) 9 SCC 677; (2008) 16
SCC 1; (2012) 10 SCC 303; 2013(83) ACC 2781.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J.)

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed by applicants Rakesh
Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Smt. Rinki, Ram
Adhar and Smt. Shanti Devi with the
prayer to quash the entire proceedings of
Case No.5094 of 2009 (State Vs. Rakesh
Kumar and others) u/s 498A, 323, 504,
506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
3 All] Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1643
P.S.-Karchhana,District-Allahabad ending
in the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No.4,
Allahabad.

2. As the matter emanated from a
matrimonial dispute the same was referred to
the District Mediation Centre at Allahabad.
The parties agreed to settle their dispute
amicably and have decided to live together
peaceably. A supplementary affidavit has
also been filed on behalf of the applicants,
which is on record. The perusal of same also
reveals that the parties are living together
happily as husband and wife and no dispute
is pending any more.

3. On the former date the opposite
party no.2 was summoned by the Court to
appear in person who in compliance with
the order dated 04.12.2013 has presented
herself before the Court. It is an
unfortunate fact that she is deaf and dumb
both. Her father, who is opposite party
no.3 and the complainant of this case, has
accompanied her and the queries made by
the Court have been conveyed and
communicated to her through her father
and she had given her positive responses.
There is no ambiguity in her positive
response. The Court itself has given
sufficient time to make clear the queries
made by itself and she in a very
conspicuous manner answered them all by
making such gestures which were more
eloquent than speech. The Court is very
well in a position to understand that she
has no objection if the proceedings going
on in the lower court are quashed as she is
not only living along with her husband
peaceably but has no grievance left any
more.

4. Sri Mahendra Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the applicants and Sri
Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel
for opp. party Nos.2 and 3 have been
heard along with learned A.G.A.

5. Counsel for the applicants have
placed reliance on the following cases:

1.B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of
Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

2.Nikhil
Merchant
Vs.
Central
Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

3.Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others
( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

4.Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(2012) 10 SCC 303

6. Reliance has also been placed on
the decision given by this Court in
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P.
And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in
which the law expounded by the Apex
court in the aforesaid cases has been
expatiated in detailed.

7. A perusal of the case law cited by
the counsel makes it very clear that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has lent its
judicial countenance to the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction in such matters so
that the abuse of the court's process may
be averted. Even in the cases which
involved non compoundable offences
their quashing has been approved by the
Apex Court if the nature of the offence is
such which does not have grave and wider
social ramifications and where the dispute
is more or less confined between the
litigating parties. A criminal litigation
emanating from matrimonial dispute has
been found to be the proceedings of the same
class where the inherent jurisdiction of this
court may be suitably exercised if the parties
inter-se have mutually decided to bury the
hatchet and settle the matter amicably in
between them. There are many other
litigations which may also fall in the same
1644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
class even though they do not arise out of
matrimonial disputes. Several disputes which
are quintessentially of civil nature and other
criminal litigations which do not have grave
and deleterious social fall-outs may also be
settled between the parties. In such matters
also when parties approached the court jointly
with the prayer to put an end to the criminal
litigations in which they had formerly locked
their horns, the Court in the wider public
interest may suitably exercise its power and
terminate the pending proceedings. Such
positive exercise of the inherent jurisdiction
can also find its vindication in a more
pragmatic reason. When the complainant of a
case or the victim of the offence itself
expresses its resolve not to give evidence
against the accused in the back drop of the
compromise between the parties inter-se, and
they are still called upon to depose in the
court, they in all probability, go back on their
words and resile from their previous
statements, the truthfulness of which is best
known only to themselves. They are in such
circumstances very likely to eat their words
and
purgure
themselves.
The
solemn
proceedings of the court often get reduced to a
shame
exercise
and
farce
in
such
circumstances. The proceedings can hardly be
taken to their logical culmination and in such
circumstances, the prospect of the conviction
gets lost. In all probability, the trial becomes a
futile exercise in vain and the precious time of
court is attended with nothing except a cruel
wastage. Of course, there are crimes which are
the offences against the State and the inter-se
compromise between the litigants cannot be
countenanced with and the court despite the
rapprochement arrived at in between the
parties, would still not like to terminate the
prosecution of the culprits. There are crimes
of very grave nature entailing far reaching
deleterious ramifications against the society.
In those matters, the courts do not encourage
either mediation or a compromise through
negotiation and even the Apex Court has
carved out exceptions and did not approve
the quashing of non-compoundable offences
regardless of their gravity. The Courts have
to be discreet and circumspect and must see
whether the exercise of inherent jurisdiction
is indeed serving the ends of justice or to the
contrary defeating the same.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances of the
case at hand the court itself had referred the
matter to the mediation which has fructified
into positive result. A broken house has come
back to life again, it shall be not only be abuse
of the court's process but shall also be a
travesty of justice, if even in such
circumstances, where husband and wife
started living together, this court cold
shoulders them and forces them once again to
join the issue and lock horns with each other.

9. The existence of Mediation Centre
has found its full vindication and the parties
have amicably settled the controversy
tormenting their lives so far. If the
proceedings of lower court are still allowed to
go on, it is apparent that the same shall be a
sheer abuse of the court's process. The dockets
of the pending cases are already bursting on
their seams and the lower Courts must be
allowed to engage themselves in more fruitful
judicial exercise and not be saddled with
matters like the one at hand whose fate is
already sealed.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances of
the case, it is deemed proper that the
impugned proceedings of the aforesaid
case be quashed forthwith. The same
therefore, are hereby quashed.

11. The application stands allowed.

12. A copy of this order be certified
to the lower court forthwith.
--------
3 All] Hira Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1645
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23175 of 2012

Hira Lal. .Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Govind Krishna, Sri Abhishek Krishna
Sri Rajendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service lawpromotional
pay
scale-entitlementexplained-petitioner got twice promotional
order-but failed to avail on personal
ground-held-not entitled for benefits of
promotional pay-reasons discussed.

Held: Para-19
Even otherwise, coming on merits, it is
evident that explanation 3, provided in G.O.
Dated
12.5.1997,
disentitle
petitioner,
benefit of time bound scale/promotional
scale for the reason that he has forgone
promotion and therefore, not a person, who
has suffered on account of stagnation due
to lack of promotional avenues. In my view,
grievance of petitioner that he should be
given higher scale ignoring his voluntarily
forgoing promotion and that too twice,
lacks substance and is not tenable either on
equity or in law, otherwise. It is not a case
where petitioner can be said to have
suffered on account of any laxity on the
part of respondents but looking to policy,
object and purpose of grant of time bound
scale/promotional
scale
i.e.
to
avoid
stagnation and open higher avenues to the
employees, who are not able to avail actual
opportunity of promotion to higher post, to
be compensated by giving higher pay scale.
The petitioner having not suffered the same
for his own volition, cannot be allowed to
complain. Since it is for something he
deserve to blame himself.

Case Law discussed:
2004(1) SCC 347; 2006(11) SCC 464; J.T.
2007 (4) SC 253; J.T. 1994(6) SC 71; 1995(5)
628; AIR 1961 SC 993; AIR 1976 SC 2617;
1976(3) SCC 579; AIR 2007 SC 1330; 2008(4)
ESC 2423.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Govind Krishna,
learned counsel for the petitioner at great
length.

2. The writ petition is directed
against orders dated 10.3.2003 and
28.11.2011 whereby petitioner has been
denied benefit of promotional pay scale
on the ground that since he was actually
promoted on higher post but voluntarily
forgo his promotion, therefore, in view of
Government
Order
dated
12.5.1997,
clarification no.3, promotional scale is not
admissible to him.

3. Sri Govind Krishna, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner forgo promotion only for the
time being and that too for a certain
period. It cannot be construed so as to
disentitle him for promotional scale, for
all times to come.

4. The facts in brief necessary for
proper adjudication of this case are as
under:

5. The petitioner was appointed as
Junior Clerk on 23.7.1973 in the office of
District
Saving
Officer, Ghazipur.
In
ordinary course of functioning, he became
due for promotion to the post of Assistant
Saving Officer. The competent authority,
vide order dated 17.9.1992, promoted him on
the post of Assistant Saving Officer and
posted him at Basti. The petitioner, who was