# Satish Kumar and others v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 42
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-12-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 33157 of 2008
- **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-kumar-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-another-41312
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482Quashing
of
Criminal
Proceedingmatrimonial
dispute-offence
under
section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3⁄4
D.P. Act-parties settled their dispute out
of Court-even whole life maintenance
given and accepted by the respondent in
counter
affidavit-held-continuance
of
proceeding amounts to abuse of the
process of Court-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
case no. 950 of 2007 (State Vs. Satish
Kumar and others) under section 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act
arising out of crime no. 527 of 2005, P.S.
Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad pending in the
Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 2, Ghaziabad is allowed to
continue. Therefore, to do the complete
justice, the proceedings of the criminal
case should be quashed by this Court in
its inherent jurisdiction under section
482 Cr.P.C.
1 All] Satish Kumar and others V. State of U.P. and another
43
Case law discussed:
2003(46) ACC 779, 2006 (30 JIC 135 (Alld.)),
2005 (51) ACC 217, 2007 (59) ACC 123, 2007
(59) ACC 148

## Text

42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
could
not
at
all
be
taken
into
consideration." It is also observed that the
court need not be satisfied that he has
committed the offence but it should
appear to it that he has committed an
offence.
In
other
words
from
the
evidence, it need only appear that
someone else has also committed an
offence to exercise jurisdiction under
section 319 Cr.P.C. The court has further
observed that "it did not see any reason to
describe the power as an extraordinary
power or to confine the exercise of it only
in compelling reasons exist for taking
cognizance against any other person
against whom action has not been taken.
After all, the section only gives power to
the court to ensure that all those persons
involved in the commission of an offence
are tried together and none left out."

13. In view of what has been stated
above, there appears no illegality in the
impugned order of the Magistrate in
summoning the revisionist under section
319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial together with
other accused persons as it appears from
the evidence on record that the revisionist
was
present
and
involved
in
the
commission of the offence along with
other accused persons. This revision has,
therefore, no force and is accordingly
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 33157 of
2008

Satish Kumar and others
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Amit Daga

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri bhaskar Mali
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482Quashing
of
Criminal
Proceedingmatrimonial
dispute-offence
under
section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3⁄4
D.P. Act-parties settled their dispute out
of Court-even whole life maintenance
given and accepted by the respondent in
counter
affidavit-held-continuance
of
proceeding amounts to abuse of the
process of Court-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
case no. 950 of 2007 (State Vs. Satish
Kumar and others) under section 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act
arising out of crime no. 527 of 2005, P.S.
Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad pending in the
Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 2, Ghaziabad is allowed to
continue. Therefore, to do the complete
justice, the proceedings of the criminal
case should be quashed by this Court in
its inherent jurisdiction under section
482 Cr.P.C.
1 All] Satish Kumar and others V. State of U.P. and another
43
Case law discussed:
2003(46) ACC 779, 2006 (30 JIC 135 (Alld.)),
2005 (51) ACC 217, 2007 (59) ACC 123, 2007
(59) ACC 148

(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) Satish Kumar,
(2) Shree Pal, (3) Smt. Kamlesh and (4)
Smt. Gyanu @ Gyanwati have invoked
inherent jurisdiction of this Court for
quashing of the proceedings of criminal
case no. 950 of 2007 (State Vs. Satish
Kumar and others) under section 498A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act
arising out of crime no. 527 of 2005, P.S.
Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad pending in the
Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 2, Ghaziabad.

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
Satish Kumar and opposite party no. 2
Smt. Kavita took place on 15.04.2001, but
subsequently some misunderstanding and
disputes were developed between the
couple, as a result of which Smt. Kavita
lodged an FIR against the applicants at
P.S. Vijay Nagar (Ghaziabad), where a
case under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at
crime
no.
527
of
2005.
After
investigation, one chargesheet against the
applicant no. 4 Smt. Gyanwati and
another
chargesheet
against
other
applicants were submitted, on the basis of
which, criminal case no. 2504 of 2006
was registered, which was renumbered as
case no. 950 of 2007. An application for
granting maintenance under section 125
Cr.P.C. was also moved by opposite party
no. 2 Smt. Kavita against her husband
applicant no. 1 Satish Kumar in case no. 3
of 2007. During the pendency of these
cases, due to intervention of some wellwishers and relatives, the parties settled
their dispute, in consequence whereof the
applicant no. 1 paid Rs.70,000/- to Smt.
Kavita as whole time maintenance and
streedhan. After payment of that amount,
a compromise was filed by the parties in
the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C.
On the basis of the compromise and
settlement arrived at between the parties,
the Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Court
No. 3, Ghaziabad vide his order dated
25.09.2008 dismissed the case under
section 125 Cr.P.C. as withdrawn. 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
Amit Daga, learned counsel for the
applicants, Sri Bhaskar Mall, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and
learned AGA for the State of U.P.

4. 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. 950 of
2007 (State Vs. Satish Kumar and others)
under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime no.
527 of 2005, P.S. Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad
pending in the Court of Addl. Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
2,
Ghaziabad, as matrimonial dispute has
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
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. Kavita in
the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C.

5. Opposite party no. 2 Smt. Kavita
has
filed counter affidavit in this
proceeding. In para 9 of the counter
affidavit,
she
has
admitted
that
Rs.70,000/- have been paid to her by
applicant no. 1 as one time maintenance
allowance as well as streedhan. In para 12
of the counter affidavit, it is also admitted
by Smt. Kavita that all the differences and
disputes occurred between the couple
have been settled by them and after
compromise, she and her husband Satish
Kumar are living separately and they are
trying to give new shape to their bright
future. In para 14 and 15 of the counter
affidavit, it is further stated that in view of
the compromise entered into between the
parties, no useful purpose would be
served
to
continue
the
criminal
proceedings of case no. 950 of 2007
pending against the applicants in the court
of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrat Court
No. 2, Ghaziabad.

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
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 non-exercise 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. Following this case, this court
in the case of Shikha Singh & others vs.
State of U.P. & another 2007 (59) ACC
123, quashed the proceedings of criminal
1 All] Smt. Rafiqan and others V. Jia-ul-Nabi and others
45
case due to the compromise entered into
between the parties. Similarly in the case
of Dinesh Kumar Jain & others vs. State
of U.P. & Others 2007 (59) ACC 148,
this court has quashed the proceedings of
the criminal case under section 498A,
323, 504, 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. Reliance in this case has been
placed on B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana
(supra).

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 case no. 950 of 2007 (State
Vs. Satish Kumar and others) under
section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime no. 527
of 2005, P.S. Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad
pending in the Court of Addl. Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
2,
Ghaziabad
is
allowed
to
continue.
Therefore, to do the complete justice, the
proceedings of the 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. 950 of
2007 (State Vs. Satish Kumar and others)
under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and 3/4 D.P. Act arising out of crime no.
527 of 2005, P.S. Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad
pending in the Court of Addl. Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
2,
Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42625 of 1998

Smt. Rafiqan and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Jia-ul-Nabi and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Prabha Kant Mishra
Sri Somnath Seth

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
Letting Rent & Eviction) Act 1972Section 30-Deposit of rent by the heir of
tenant with the name of deceased land
lord-neither taken steps to brought the
heirs of land lord on record nor given
notice to the land lord before deposit of
such rent-held-deposit no valid-heirs of
tenant can not claim benefit under
Section 30 by the petitioner.

Held: Para 8

For the aforesaid reasons I do not find
any error in the impugned judgments.
Continuance of deposit of rent in the
case under Section 30 of the Act after
the death of original landlord/opposite
party in the said case on 03.09.1988 was
utterly invalid and heirs of original
landlord could not withdraw the said
amount.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. At the time of hearing no one
appeared on behalf of respondent hence
only the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioners were heard.