# Shyam Sunder Gupta v. State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 48
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-01-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6449 of 2009
- **Bench:** R.K. Agrawal, S.C. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shyam-sunder-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-others-41001
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Act-226-Quashing
of FIR-offence under Section 498-A,323,
506 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act- on
ground in matrimonial dispute they have
settled a their differences- duly verified
by mediation centre- no useful purpose
shall be in continuing the criminal
proceeding accordingly FIR quashed.

Held: Para-11

Considering the facts that the subject
matter
of
this
FIR,
which
is
a
matrimonial dispute and is of a pure
personal
nature,
is
now
stands
voluntary, mutually and amicably settled
between the parties vide compromise
deed filed through Mediation Centre of
this Court, we see no purpose in
continuing
the
criminal
proceedings
arising out of FIR in question. 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 courts.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Cri.) 464.
1 All] Shyam Sunder Gupta and others V. State of U.P. and others
49

## Text

48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
argument of the counsel for revisionist is
without any substance.

9. Counsel for revisionist has also
placed reliance on a number of decisions
of the Apex Court as well as this Court;
Kulwant Singh Vs. Amarjit Singh and
others 2000 (40) ACC (SC) 783, Sudhir
and others Vs. State of M.P. 2001 (42)
ACC (SC) 479, Balbir Vs. State of
Haryana and another 2000 (40) ACC (SC)
149, State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (dead)
and others 2003 (46) ACC (SC) 881 and
Jugdish
and
others
Vs.
Additional
Sessions Judge/FTC, Siddarth Nagar and
another 2008 (63) ACC 71.

10. Principles laid down in all these
decisions are that whenever cross case is
pending, both cases should be tried
together. No doubt, it is settled principle
of law. I am in full agreement that cross
case should be tried together. But in the
instant case taking into consideration that
only an order was passed by Magistrate to
register and investigate the matter, which
has been stayed by this Court as far back
as in year 2006, there is no cross case in
existence
at
present.
Therefore,
application has rightly been rejected by
Additional Sessions Judge. No good
ground for interference is made out. The
instant revision lacks merits and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD THE: 27.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6449 of 2009

Shyam Sunder Gupta
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K.Mishra,
A.G.A.

Constitution of India, Act-226-Quashing
of FIR-offence under Section 498-A,323,
506 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act- on
ground in matrimonial dispute they have
settled a their differences- duly verified
by mediation centre- no useful purpose
shall be in continuing the criminal
proceeding accordingly FIR quashed.

Held: Para-11

Considering the facts that the subject
matter
of
this
FIR,
which
is
a
matrimonial dispute and is of a pure
personal
nature,
is
now
stands
voluntary, mutually and amicably settled
between the parties vide compromise
deed filed through Mediation Centre of
this Court, we see no purpose in
continuing
the
criminal
proceedings
arising out of FIR in question. 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 courts.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Cri.) 464.
1 All] Shyam Sunder Gupta and others V. State of U.P. and others
49
(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. The petitioners through the
present writ petition have invoked the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned FIR dated 5.6.2007 relating to
case crime no.41 of 2007 under Section
498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.
Act, P.S. Armapur, District- Kanpur
Nagar.

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned AGA for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 3- the
complainant did not appear when the case
was taken up in the revised list.

3. This is a matrimonial dispute. The
first informant Anita Gupta, respondent
no. 3 is the wife of petitioner no. 1 Shyam
Sunder Gupta. Petitioner no. 2 and 3 are
the real brothers and petitioners no. 4 and
5 are the parents of petitioner no.1.

4. F.I.R. was lodged on the orders
passed by the Metropolitan MagistrateIV, Kanpur Nagar on the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by
respondent no. 3. It was alleged that
respondent no. 3 was married with
petitioner no.1 on 14.05.2003. The
petitioners were not happy with the dowry
given and started harassing respondent
no.3 on account of demand of Hero
Honda motor-cycle and 25000- in cash as
dowry. Demand for dowry was made on
20.04.2007 at 12 Noon. When the demand
was not fulfilled, the petitioners beat the
respondent
no.3
but
she
somehow
managed to escape and got herself
medically examined on 20.4.2007 at
Ursala Hospital, Kanpur Nagar.

5. On 10.4.2009, at the time of
admission of this writ petition, a Division
Bench consisting of Hon'ble Imtiyaz
Murtaza, J. and Hon'ble S.C. Nigam, J.
held that it was one of those case in which
reconciliation should be tried between the
disputing parties. The matter was referred
to Mediation Centre of this Court.

6. Report of Mediation Centre is on
record. Mediation sessions took place on
10.06.2009 and 03.07.2009, parties came
to terms and settlement agreement was
executed, which is also on record.

7. As per the terms and the
settlement agreement, the petitioner no. 1
and respondent no. 3 decided to obtain a
decree or mutual divorce on the condition
that a sum of Rs.75000/- is paid by the
petitioners to respondent no.3 by bank
draft within a period of three months
before the Court where the proceedings of
aforesaid case crime no. 41 of 2007 are
pending. It was further agreed that all
civil and criminal cases pending between
the parties shall be treated to be
withdrawn.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that in pursuance of
the compromise/ settlement agreement
3.7.2009 the petitioners have deposited a
sum of Rs.75000/- in the Court of
ACMM-II Kanpur Nagar in Crime no 41
of 2007 and case no. 1831 of 2009, P.S.
Armapur, District- Kanpur Nagar through
bank
draft.
A
certificate
copy
of
application dated 30.09.2009 filed by
petitioner no.1 in the court of ACMM-II,
Kanpur Nagar has been filed to show that
bank draft for Rs.75000/- was deposited
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
in court by petitioner no. 1 within
stipulated period.

9.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that parties have
come to terms and matrimonial dispute
has been mutually settled and thus the
FIR and all proceedings connected
therewith be quashed.

10. 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 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, 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.

11. Considering the facts that the
subject matter of this FIR, which is a
matrimonial dispute and is of a pure
personal nature, is now stands voluntary,
mutually and amicably settled between
the parties vide compromise deed filed
through Mediation Centre of this Court,
we see no purpose in continuing the
criminal proceedings arising out of FIR in
question. 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 courts.

12. We accordingly allow the writ
petition and the FIR dated 5.6.2007
relating to case crime no. 41 of 2007
under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Armapur, District-
Kanpur
Nagar
and
all
proceedings
connected therewith are quashed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2010

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

Criminal Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.
28862 of 2009

Shashi Kumar Yadav

...Applicant
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ramanuj Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra
Sri V.K. Nagaich
A.S.G.I.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Habeas
Corpus Petition-detention order passed
on 21.3.2009- 275 explosive detonators
recovered from possession of petitioner-
to supply the nexlite- certainly a serious
charge-
but
delay
in
disposal
of
Representation
about
four
weeks-
process of law must have been followed-
explanation for delay- minister concern
was on tour held not proper- detention
order quashed.

Held: Para-11