# Smt. Geeta and others v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 648
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-05-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 24354 of 2007
- **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-geeta-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-another-41074
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal procedure-Section 482Application
for
quashing
criminal
proceeding for offence under section
323/504/506/498-A
readwith
3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act-Parties settled
their differences before Medication &
Conciliation Center Allahabad-agreed to
withdraw all criminal cases against her
husband-held-if
the
proceeding
continued-the same amounts to abuse of
the process of court, according by
exercising inherent power all proceeding
quashed.

Held; Para 7

In view of the above discussion, I am of
the considered opinion that it would be
an abuse of the process of the Court, if
the criminal proceedings against the
applicants
and
other
accused
in
renumbered
allowed
to
continue.
Therefore, to do the complete justice,
the proceedings of the case may be
quashed by this Court in its inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, [2006(30)
JIC 135 (Alld)], 2005 (51) ACC 217 (SC), 2007
(59) ACC 123, 2007 (59) ACC 148

## Text

648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
reinstatement with continuity of service
and full back wages to the workman as
such he is entitled to the wages as claimed
by him from the date of the award and
that the Labour Court has therefore, not
committed an illegality in allowing the
application of the workman under Section
33-C(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. He states that the claim of the
workman was based upon an application
under Section 4-K of the Act, hence no
fresh application is required under the Act
for entering into the terms of the
agreement.

17. On a specific query made by the
Court from learned counsel for the
petitioner as to whether agreement said to
have been entered into between the
workman
and the Corporation was
registered under the provisions of Section
6-B (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 or not? he has very fairly stated
that it does not appear true from the
record. In so far as the agreement entered
into between the workman and the
Corporation
outside
conciliation
proceedings is concerned, it must be
registered under the provisions of Section
6-B(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Since the agreement was no
registered in the prescribed manner as
provided under Section 6-B(2) of the Act
it does not help the case of the petitioner
being not in accordance with law.

18. If things are to be done in a
certain manner, it must be done in that
manner. Therefore, the agreement entered
into the parties outside conciliation
proceedings ought to have been registered
under the provisions of Section 6-B(2) of
the Act. Since the employers have failed
to get the agreement registered under the
provisions of Section 6-B(2) of the Act,
they can not get benefit of it.

19. In my opinion, the Labour Court
has rightly allowed the application of the
workman under Section 33-C(2) of the
Act holding that such an agreement out
side the conciliation proceedings is not
enforceable in law in State of U.P.
without it being registered under the
provisions of Section 6-B (2) of the U. P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears
that the workman was reinstated in
service in terms of the award and not in
terms of the agreement.

20. For all the reasons stated above,
the writ petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.

21. The Corporation shall pay wages
to the workman under Section 33-C(2) of
the Act within a period of two months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order. Petition Dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 24354 of
2007

Smt. Geeta and others
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri O.P. Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri V.P. Mishra
A.G.A.
2 All] Smt. Geeta and others V. State of U.P. and another
649
Code of Criminal procedure-Section 482Application
for
quashing
criminal
proceeding for offence under section
323/504/506/498-A
readwith
3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act-Parties settled
their differences before Medication &
Conciliation Center Allahabad-agreed to
withdraw all criminal cases against her
husband-held-if
the
proceeding
continued-the same amounts to abuse of
the process of court, according by
exercising inherent power all proceeding
quashed.

Held; Para 7

In view of the above discussion, I am of
the considered opinion that it would be
an abuse of the process of the Court, if
the criminal proceedings against the
applicants
and
other
accused
in
renumbered
allowed
to
continue.
Therefore, to do the complete justice,
the proceedings of the case may be
quashed by this Court in its inherent
jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675, [2006(30)
JIC 135 (Alld)], 2005 (51) ACC 217 (SC), 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 of the code of Criminal
Procedure (in short the 'Cr.P.C.), the
applicants Smt. Geeta, Smt. Krishna Devi
and Smt. Rekha Solanki have invoked
inherent jurisdiction of this Court, praying
for
quashing
of
the
order
dated
21.07.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions
Judge Court No. 10, Ghaziabad in
Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2007 (Smt.
Geeta & others Vs. State of U.P.) and the
order dated 27.02.2007, passed by the
Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad in Crl.
Case No. 1923 of 2006 (State vs. Onkar
Singh & others) under sections 323, 506,
498A of Indian Penal Code (in short the
'IPC') and section 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition
Act (in short the 'D.P. Act') of P.S.
Murad Nagar (Ghaziabad).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the
facts leading to the filing of the
application under section 482 Cr.P.C., in
brief, a re that an FIR was lodged by Smt.
Manju (Opposite Party No. 2 herein)
against her husband Onkar Singh and his
family members including the applicants
on 07.11.2005 at P.S. Murad Nagar
District Ghaziabad, where a case under
Section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and section
3/4 D.P. Act was registered at Crime No.
358/05. Annexure 1 is the copy of that
FIR. After investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the accused persons, on
which cognizance was taken by the
Magistrate concerned and the accused
persons including the applicants were
summoned to face the trial in Criminal
Case No. 1923 of 2006. After hearing
parties counsel, the Judicial Magistrate
Ghaziabad passed an order on 27.2.2007
to frame charge against the accused under
section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.
Act. Consequently, the charge was framed
against all the accused persons on
09.04.2007 by the Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
5
Ghaziabad in re-numbered Crl. Case No.
467 of 2007. Order dated 27.02.2007 was
challenged by the applicants in the court
of Sessions Judge Ghaziabad by means of
Crl. Revision No. 206 of 2007, which has
been decided by the Additional Sessions
Judge Court No. 10, Ghaziabad vide
impugned judgement and order dated
21.07.2007, whereby the revision has
been dismissed. Both these orders have
been sought to be quashed in this
proceedings.
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
3. I have heard Shri O.P. Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicants, learned
AGA for the State and also perused the
material on record. None appeared for
O.P. No.2 on the day of hearing, although
she had put in appearance through her
counsel Sri V.P. Mishra Advocate.

4. At the time of admission of this
case, the matter was referred to Allahabad
High Court Medication and conciliation
Centre vide order dated 04.10.2007. With
the intervention of the Mediation Centre,
the parties have settled their dispute and
they
filed
compromise
before
the
Mediation Centre on 03.02.2008, which is
on record. According to the terms of this
compromise before the Mediation Centre
on 03.02.2008, which is on record.
According
to
the
terms
of
this
compromise, Smt. Manju (O.P. No.2) has
agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by
her against her husband Onkar Singh and
his family members. Criminal Case No.
1923 of 2006 (State vs. Onkar Singh &
others), under section 498A, 323, 506 IPC
and 3/4 D.P. Act also is to be withdrawn
in addition to other cases mentioned in
compromise (settlement agreement).

5. Drawing my attention towards the
compromise filed by the parties before the
Allahabad High Court Mediation &
Conciliation Cent re, it was submitted by
the learned counsel for the applicants that
continuance
of
the
proceedings
of
Criminal Case No. 1923 of 2006
(renumbered as Crl. Case No. 467 of
2007) is not in the interest of justice and
hence the entire proceedings of the case
including both the impugned orders
should be quashed by this Court in its
inherent jurisdiction under section 482
Cr.P.C. For this contention, reliance has
been placed on the cases of B.S. Joshi &
others vs. State of Haryana & another
(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 and
Ausaf Ahmad Abbasi & ors. vs. State of
U.P. & another. [2006(30) JIC 135
(Alld)].

6. Having given my thoughtful
consideration to the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the applicants, I
am of the opinion that continuance of
criminal
proceedings
against
the
applicants are not in the interest of justice,
as Smt. Manju (O.P. No.2) and her
husband Onkar Singh have settled their
matrimonial dispute due to intervention of
the Mediation Centre and they have
agreed to live together. All the three
applicants are the family members of the
husband of Smt. Manju, who have been
arrayed as accused in the FIR lodged by
her at case C rime No. 358/05 at P. S.
Murad Nagar, on the basis of which
criminal proceedings in re-numbered
criminal case no. 467 of 2007 is pending
against them. Since the matrimonia1
dispute
has
been
settled
amicab1y
between Smt. Manju and her husband
Onkar Singh, hence continuance of the
Criminal
proceedings
against
the
applicants would not be in the interest of
justice, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the similar circumstances in the case of
B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana (supra),
which has been followed by this Court in
the case of Ausaf Ahmad Abbasi vs. State
of U.P. (supra). Reference in this regard
may be made to the case of Ruchi
Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal &
others 2005 (51) ACC 217 (SC) 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 proceedings
under section 125 Cr.P.C. Following this
2 All] Dr. Vinay Mohan Tripathi V. State of U.P. and others
651
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 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 proceedings under section
125 Cr.P.C. Reliance in this case has been
placed on B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana
(supra).

7. In view of the above discussion, I
am of the considered opinion that it would
be an abuse of the process of the Court, if
the criminal proceedings against the
applicants
and
other
accused
in
renumbered
allowed
to
continue.
Therefore, to do the complete justice, the
proceedings of the case may be quashed
by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction
under section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. Consequently, the application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 467 of
2007 (old No. 1923 of 2006) State vs.
Onkar Singh & others under section
498A, 323, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P.
Act, arising out of case Crime No. 358/05
of P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad,
pending in the court of Addl. Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
(Court
No.
5)
Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed.

The office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the Trial court concerned
for necessary action.
Application
Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26035 of 2008

Dr. Vinay Mohan Tripathi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. S.P. Pandey
Sri. S.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. B.D. Pandey
S.C.

U.P. State Universities Act, 1973-Section
31(3)(c)-regularization-part
time
lecturer-working in an affiliated collegecannot be equated with regular teacherbenefit of regularization as contained in
Section 31(3)(c)-held-not available to
such part time teacher.

Held: Para 14 & 15

In view of the aforesaid statutory
provisions, we are of the considered
opinion that a teacher, who has been
appointed
in
an
affiliated
Degree
College, cannot be equated with that of
the teacher appointed in the University
with reference to Section 31 (3)(c) of the
U.P. State Universities Act.

We are also of the considered opinion
that any part time teacher appointed in a
Degree College cannot claim benefit of
the services rendered by him in the
affiliated
Degree
College
for
the
purposes
of
claiming
benefit
of
regularization under Section 31 (3)(c) of
the U.P. State Universities Act on being
subsequently appointed in the University
on part time/short term basis.