# Ravi Shankar Saini & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1380
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-31
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 1292 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-shankar-saini-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50059
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Application under Section
482 CrPC- quashing of proceedings-under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act-
compromise deed executed between the
parties-withdrawal of all cases between
them- Petition for mutual divorce under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriages Act,
1956 is pending before the Family Court-
cooling off period of six months waived- in
light of compromise between the partiescriminal
proceedings
under
challenge
quashed-Application allowed.

HELD:
High lighting the aforesaid facts, learned
counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the
State submit that they have no objection if this
Court may direct the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Faizabad to decide the petition filed
under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 expeditiously within short period, waiving
the cooling off period of six months in view of
the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme
4 All. Ravi Shankar Saini & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1381
Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs.
Harveen Kaur: AIR 2017 SC 4417 and
further order passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in First Appeal Defective No.
392 of 2019: Shalini Massey Vs. Neeraj
Samuel Dass, decided on 07.01.2020. They
further submit that the provision of cooling
off period is not mandatory but is a
directory provision and the Family Court
where the petition is pending under Section
13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act can waive
off the period of six month as the parties
have decided for judicial separation.

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on 05.03.2022 a coordinate Bench of this
Court has passed the following order in that
Writ Petition: -

"Accordingly, in our opinion, the
review application filed by the petitioner
needs to be heard at an early date.

Having regard to the totality of
the facts and circumstances of the case, we
find it appropriate to provide that till the
next date of listing, pursuant to the
impugned notice dated 02.03.2022, no
demolition/eviction in respect of House
No.B-218,
Sector
17,
Rajajipuram,
Lucknow shall take place."

32.
Thus,
the
validity
of
the
demolition notice dated 02.03.2022 is
under question before this Court in Writ C
No.1362 of 2022 and the petitioner has
already been granted interim protection in
the aforesaid

Writ Petition and these grounds
cannot be raised as a ground of review for
the order dated 29.08.2019, passed in Writ
C No.13684 of 2019, wherein the review
petitioner had filed a counter affidavit and
the plea of amendment in the relevant
Rules had not been raised and, therefore,
this Court has not decided that plea. Failure
of this Court to decide a plea that has not
been raised, cannot be termed as an error
apparent on the face of the record.

33. As such, having considered the
submissions made on behalf of the parties,
we find ourselves unable to agree with the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the review petitioner and we do not find
any error, much less an error apparent on
the face of the record, in the order dated
29.08.2019, passed in Writ C No.13864 of
2019.

34. The review petition/ application
lacks merit and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1380
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1292 of 2021

Ravi Shankar Saini & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mukteshwar Mishra, Sri Abhay Nath
Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Onkar Singh

Criminal Law-Application under Section
482 CrPC- quashing of proceedings-under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act-
compromise deed executed between the
parties-withdrawal of all cases between
them- Petition for mutual divorce under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriages Act,
1956 is pending before the Family Court-
cooling off period of six months waived- in
light of compromise between the partiescriminal
proceedings
under
challenge
quashed-Application allowed.

HELD:
High lighting the aforesaid facts, learned
counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the
State submit that they have no objection if this
Court may direct the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Faizabad to decide the petition filed
under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 expeditiously within short period, waiving
the cooling off period of six months in view of
the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme
4 All. Ravi Shankar Saini & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1381
Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs.
Harveen Kaur: AIR 2017 SC 4417 and
further order passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in First Appeal Defective No.
392 of 2019: Shalini Massey Vs. Neeraj
Samuel Dass, decided on 07.01.2020. They
further submit that the provision of cooling
off period is not mandatory but is a
directory provision and the Family Court
where the petition is pending under Section
13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act can waive
off the period of six month as the parties
have decided for judicial separation.

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur: AIR 2017
SC 4417

2. First Appeal Defective No. 392 of 2019:
Shalini Massey Vs. Neeraj Samuel Dass, decided
on 07.01.2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Mukteshwar Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicants, Shri
Onkar Singh,learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 and Shri Diwakar
Singh, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer
to quash the impugned summoning order
dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Civil
Judge (Junior Division)4th, Faizabad in
Criminal Case No. 04 of 2021 arising out
of case crime No. 103 of 2020, under
sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-
Ram Janam Bhoomi, District Ayodhya
and the impugned chargesheet as well as
the proceeding of the aforesaid Criminal
CaseNo. 04 of 2021 pending in the court
of Civil Judge (Junior Division) 4th,
Faizabad.

3. In Compliance of this Court's order
dated 14-03-2023 applicant no.1- Ravi
Shankar Saini and opposite party no.2-Smt.
Mamta
Suman
alongwith
her
minor
daughter namely Dipti Saini are present in
person before this Court. They are
identified by their respective counsels.

4. Applicant no.1-Ravi Shankar Saini
has handed over copy of original daft of Rs.
7,00,000/- bearing no. 140963 dated 10-032023 of Punjab National Bank and also
copy of original certificate of Fixed
Deposit (F.D.) of Rs.3,00,000/- of State
Bank of India, Branch Urdu Bazar,
Gorakhpur dated 17.03.2023 in the name of
Dipti Saini under the guardianship of her
mother Smt. Mamta Suman, to opposite
party no.2-Smt Mamta Suman in Court
today through her advocate Shri Onkar
Singh as one time final alimony for
settlement. The receipts of the aforesaid
draft andFixed Deposit certificate are taken
on record.

5. Applicant No.1-Ravi Shankar Saini
stated before this Court that he is ready to
return the Grand i-10 car which he received
at the time of marriage as gift, in a good
condition to the opposite party no.2-Smt.
Mamta Suman.

6. Applicant No.1-Ravi Shankar Saini
and opposite party no.2-Mamta Suman
have also stated before this Court that they
shall withdraw their cases either civil or
criminal filed against each other or their
family members.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that in compliance of this Court's
order dated 14.03.2023, both the parties
appeared before the Senior Registrar, High
Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow on
27.03.2023 for verification of compromise
1382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deed. The Senior Registrar, High Court,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow verified the
compromise
deed
on
27.3.2023
and
submitted its report dated 27.3.2023 which
is reproduced herein-below:-

"Vide Hon'ble Court's order
dated 14-03-2023, both parties were
directed to appear before the undersigned
today for verification of compromise deed.
The said compromise deed is annexed as
Annexure No. A-1 to C.M. Application No.
IA 9 of 2023.

Today, Petitioners, namely (1)
Ravi Shankar Saini S/o Rajendra Prasad
Saini, (2) Rajendra Saini S/o Late Gulab
Chandra Saini, (3) Smt. Laxmi Saini W/o
Rajendra Saini and (4) Smt. Roma Saini
W/o Praveen Saini alongwith their learned
counsel
Shri
Muketeshwar
Mishra,
Advocate and opposite party no. 2 Smt.
Mamta Suman W/o Ravi Shankar Saini D/o
Nand Lal Suman alongwith her learned
counsel Shri Onkar Singh, Advocate are
present before me. Vakalatnama of both the
counsels are on record. The proof of
identity i.e. Aadhar Card is produced by
both the parties, at the time of verification.

The contents of said compromise
deed have been read over and explained to
both the parties to the compromise deed
and they have stated that they have
executed the same according to their free
will and as a token there of they have
affixed their photographs, put RTIs and
signatures, which are duly attested and
verified by their respective counsels.

In view of the said facts, the
compromise between petitioners, namely
(1) Ravi Shankar Saini S/o Rajendra
Prasad Saini, (2) Rajendra Saini s/o Late
Gulab Chandra Saini, (3) Smt. Laxmi Saini
W/o Rajendra Saini and (4) Smt. Roma
Saini W/o Praveen Saini and opposite party
no. 2 Smt. Mamta Suman W/o Ravi Shankar
Saini D/o Nand Lal Suman is being verified
by me today i.e. 27th day of March, 2023.

The report is submitted before
Hon'ble Court for orders."

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that in compliance of this
Court's order dated 14.3.2023 the parties
have filed a petition under section 13-B of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the court
of Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad
on 21.3.2023, a certified copy thereof is
given to this Court, which is taken on
record.

9. Thus, the parties have already
entered into compromise and the terms of
compromise have already been verified by
the Senior Registrar, High Court, Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow on 27-03-2023 and the
parties have already filed a petition under
section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 in the court of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Faizabad on 21-03-2023,

10. High lighting the aforesaid facts,
learned counsel for the applicants, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and
learned AGA for the State submit that they
have no objection if this Court may direct
the
Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
Faizabad to decide the petition filed under
section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 expeditiously within short period,
waiving the cooling off period of six
months in view of the judgement passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur:
AIR 2017 SC 4417 and further order
passed by the Division Bench of this Court
in First Appeal Defective No. 392 of
4 All. Ravi Shankar Saini & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1383
2019: Shalini Massey Vs. Neeraj Samuel
Dass, decided on 07.01.2020. They further
submit that the provision of cooling off
period is not mandatory but is a directory
provision and the Family Court where the
petition is pending under Section 13-B of
the Hindu Marriage Act can waive off the
period of six month as the parties have
decided for judicial separation.

11. As the dispute between the parties
have
almost
settled
and
only
legal
impediment is being done for their
separation, thus no useful purpose will be
served in delaying the proceedings of the
petition filed under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad.

12. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 and learned AGA for the State
submit that as the dispute between the
parties have already been settled by way of
compromise and the compromise deed has
been verified by the Senior Registrar, High
Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, they
have no objection if the proceeding of the
aforesaid case pending before court below
is quashed.

13. Accordingly, in view of the
arguments as advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties as well the
statements of the parties and also in view of
the judgment referred to above, the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad is
hereby directed to decide and pass the order
expeditiously in accordance with law in the
petition filed by both the parties under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by
waiving off the cooling period of six
months, in view of the judgement of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
passed
in
Amardeep
Singh
(Supra)
and
the
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court passed in Shalini Massey (supra),
without
granting
any
unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties unless
there is some legal impediment or unless
there is any order passed by the higher
court staying the proceedings of the case.

14. Applicant no.1-Ravi Shanker Saini
is directed to return the Grand i-10 car which
he received at the time of marriage as gift, in
a good condition to the opposite party no.2Smt. Mamta Suman, within 15 days after
passing of the decree under Section 13-B of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

15. It is also directed that any case
either civil or criminal filed by both the
parties against each other or their family
members shall be withdrawn by the parties
within 15 days after passing of the decree
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.

16. The parties are free to live their
independent lives after the decree is passed
under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. The applicant no.1-Ravi Shankar Saini is
free to visit and meet her minor daughter Dipti
Saini on 4th Sunday of each month between
10.00 AM to 1.00 PM. Opposite party no.2Smt. Mamta Suman shall not make any
hindrance in their meeting.

17. In view of the above, the present
application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands
allowed and the impugned summoning order
dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Civil Judge
(Junior Division) 4th, Faizabad in Criminal
Case No. 04 of 2021 arising out of case crime
No. 103 of 2020, under sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station- Ram Janam Bhoomi, District
Ayodhya and the impugned chargesheet as well
as the proceeding of the aforesaid Criminal
Case No. 04 of 2021 pending in the court of
1384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Judge (Junior Division) 4th, Faizabad are
quashed so far as its relates to applicants.

18. The party shall file computer
generated
copy
of
such
order
downloaded from the official website of
High Court, Allahabad or certified copy
issued from the Registry of the High
Court, Allahabad.

19. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court, Allahabad and
shall make a declaration of such verification in
writing.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1384
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1092 of 2005
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2005

Shyam Behari Mishra & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri
Jagdish
Singh
Sengar,
Sri
Anuj
Srivastava, Sri Mohd. Raghib Ali Ac, Sri
Saghir Ahmad (Sn. Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri V.K. Barawal, Sri Vivek Kumar
Shukla

Criminal
Law-Appeal-Conviction
under
Section 302 and 307 read with section 34
IPC-old enmity regarding land between
the parties-motive behind the crimedefence could not create any doubt about
the FIR being lodged ante-dated and antetimed-investigation
started
just
after
lodging of FIR-inquest is not a substantive
piece of evidence-no need of previously
lodged FIR-contents of FIR, inquest and
oral evidence-conformity with each otherno contradiction between ocular and
medical evidence-testimony of related and
family members can be relied upon-proper
scrutiny and cautious appreciation of
evidence
necessary-report
of
FSL
admissible in evidence under Sectio 293 of
CrPC-mere non-recording of statements of
some witnesses does not create doubtmere
faulty
investigation-delay
in
recording statement of witness not fatal
for the prosecution-defective framing of
charge of no consequence-unless it results
in failure of justice-plea of alibi rejected-
all defence witnesses are colleagues of the
accused-prior meeting of mind presentconviction rightly under Section 34 IPC-no
infirmity in judgement of the trial courtconviction
upheld-appeal
dismissed.
(Paras 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 44, 49,60,63 and
67)

HELD:
In this case defence could not create any doubt
about the F.I.R. being lodged ante-dated and
ante-timed. The investigation started just after
the F.I.R. was lodged. After few hours the
deceased had been declared brought dead and
the proceeding of inquest and post-mortem had
been started. The I.O. had visited the spot and
prepared map and had also recorded statement
of informant, therefore, only delay in sending
the report/copy of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate
under Section 157 Cr.P.C. is not fatal for the
prosecution and in no way affects the merit of
the case. (Para 28)

This Court is of the opinion that for inquest
there is no need of previously lodged F.I.R.
Suppose an unidentified dead body is found and
no FIR is being lodged, in that case, the police
shall visit the place and shall take the dead body
in its possession and shall conduct inquest and
post-mortem and shall publish news in media
and newspaper, if after few days any person
comes and claims the dead body and moves
written complaint to lodge the F.I.R., it cannot