# Smt. Neelanjana Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1153
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-22
- **Bench:** Imtiyaz Murtaza, Amar Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neelanjana-gupta-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40767
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

1154 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Quashing
of FIR-offence under section 498-A-
/323/504/506 I.P.C.-The main purpose
to encourage the settlement of marital
disputes between the spouses- to avoid
the interminable litigation- so that they
do
not
lose
their
youthful
years-
accordingly
the
husband
deposited
Rs.600000/- and the wife informant
admitted
the
receiving
and
filed
application for with drawl of criminal
case and the other proceeding u/s 125
Cr.P.C.-held- FIR liable to quashed -
necessary directions issued to the family
court
also
-
relating
to
divorce
proceeding.

Held: Para 11

As we feel that the parties have amicably
parted on the intervention of this Court
and the petitioner Prashant Gupta has
paid a substantial amount Rs. 6 lakhs to
arrive at a permanent settlement with
Anjali Gupta, the parties may now be
interested in getting on with their lives,
marrying someone else of their choices,
we therefore think that considering the
apparent irretrievable break down of
their marriage, and for putting a 'quietus
to the litigations' the Principal Judge
Family Court may also consider passing
appropriate orders in the petition for
divorce filed by Smt. Anjali Gupta most
expeditiously. It is directed that when
petitioner Prashant Gupta who works
out of station and who needs to travel
abroad
appears
before
the
Court
concerned for the purpose of filling his
absence of objections to the prayer for
divorce the concerned Court should not
grant any unnecessary adjournment.
Case law discussed:
1977(2) SCC-699
AIR 2004 SCC-261

## Text

3All] Smt. Neelanjana Gupta and others V. State of U.P. and others 1153

6. Learned Standing Counsel, who
represents respondent nos. 1,2, and 4,
however, submitted that the pension has
been rightly calculated and re-fixed at
Rs.4167/- vide order dated 22nd June,
2001 and it needs no revision.

7. Having given our anxious
consideration to the various plea raised by
the learned counsel for the parties, we
find that the Government Order dated 13th
April, 2000 specifically provides for
payment of at least 50% of the minimum
of the revised pay scale as on 1st January,
1996 to the pensioners. There is no
dispute regarding revised pay scale of
Rs.10000-15200 in respect of the post
from which the petitioner had retired.
Thus, he was entitled for Rs.5000/- as
pension payable from 1st January, 1996.
The fixation of pension at Rs.4167/- is,
therefore, wholly illegal and contrary to
the provisions of Government Order dated
13th April, 2000.

8. So far as the claim of interest is
concerned, we find that the Apex Court in
the cases of Dr. Uma Agrawal vs. State
of U.P. and others, 1999 SCC (L&S) 742
and Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P.
and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599 has
held that the State is liable to pay simple
interest on the delayed payment of retiral
benefits. As admittedly the arrears of
revised pension were paid in September,
2000, and the pension in the revised pay
scale, pursuant to the Government Order
dated 13th April, 2000, has wrongly been
fixed, the petitioner is entitled for interest
also. We, therefore, direct the respondent
nos. 1 and 4 to pay interest at the rate
12% per annum on the amount of arrears
paid in September, 2000 from the date
when it became due till the date of actual
payment and further to fix the petitioner's
pension at Rs.5000/- plus allowances
from 1.1.1996 onwards. The petitioner
shall also be paid interest on the arrears of
the difference amount so calculated at the
rate of 10% per annum from the date it
became due till the date of its actual
payment. The difference amount along
with interest shall be paid to the petitioner
within one month from the date a certified
copy of this order is filed before the
respondent nos. 1 and 4.

9. As the petitioner is 99 years old, it
goes without saying that respondent nos.
1 and 4 shall accord top priority to this
matter and work out the amount and pay
the same to the petitioner within the
stipulated period so that the petitioner
may feel satisfied by enjoying the fruits of
his career during his life time. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

However, there shall be no order as
to costs. Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2006.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 5585 of
2006

Smt. Neelanjana Gupta and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.K. Parekh
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Quashing
of FIR-offence under section 498-A-
/323/504/506 I.P.C.-The main purpose
to encourage the settlement of marital
disputes between the spouses- to avoid
the interminable litigation- so that they
do
not
lose
their
youthful
years-
accordingly
the
husband
deposited
Rs.600000/- and the wife informant
admitted
the
receiving
and
filed
application for with drawl of criminal
case and the other proceeding u/s 125
Cr.P.C.-held- FIR liable to quashed -
necessary directions issued to the family
court
also
-
relating
to
divorce
proceeding.

Held: Para 11

As we feel that the parties have amicably
parted on the intervention of this Court
and the petitioner Prashant Gupta has
paid a substantial amount Rs. 6 lakhs to
arrive at a permanent settlement with
Anjali Gupta, the parties may now be
interested in getting on with their lives,
marrying someone else of their choices,
we therefore think that considering the
apparent irretrievable break down of
their marriage, and for putting a 'quietus
to the litigations' the Principal Judge
Family Court may also consider passing
appropriate orders in the petition for
divorce filed by Smt. Anjali Gupta most
expeditiously. It is directed that when
petitioner Prashant Gupta who works
out of station and who needs to travel
abroad
appears
before
the
Court
concerned for the purpose of filling his
absence of objections to the prayer for
divorce the concerned Court should not
grant any unnecessary adjournment.
Case law discussed:
1977(2) SCC-699
AIR 2004 SCC-261

(Delivered by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioners for quashing the first
information report lodged at case crime
No. 395 of 2005, under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3⁄4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station
Colonelganj, district Allahabad.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties, and have perused the
affidavits and counter-affidavits filed by
the parties.

3. The F.I.R contained the usual
allegations of cruelty and dowry demand.
As the parties appeared to be of
respectable status and petitioner No. 3 is
said to be working in Infosys company it
was apparent to this Court that the FIR
has been lodged under the aforesaid
sections
in
view
of
the
marital
incompatibility between the petitioner No.
3 Smt. Anjali Gupta. It may be mentioned
that a divorce suit had even been filed by
respondent No. 3 against petitioner No. 3
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act.

4. Keeping in mind the sage advice
of the apex Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386 to Courts to
encourage settlement of marital disputes
between contesting spouses so that they
do not lose their youthful years in chasing
interminable litigations, we encouraged
the parties to arrive at an amicable
settlement with the aid of their counsel.
Accordingly during the course of the
hearing of this petition on 9.5.2006, we
postponed the case to 17.5.2006 so that
the parties could thrash out the terms of a
settlement. Fortunately the parties and
counsel have heeded our advice, and have
reached
a
fair
settlement
to
the
satisfaction of both parties.

5. In pursuance of the compromise,
the petitioner no. 3 has paid Rs. 600,000/-
3All] Smt. Neelanjana Gupta and others V. State of U.P. and others 1155
(Rupees six lakhs only) by two bank
drafts and a counter affidavit dated
9.5.2006 has even been by respondent No.
3 in which she has admitted receiving the
amount. She has further mentioned that
she is no more interested in prosecuting
the petitioner s on the basis of the FIR.
She is also willing to file an application
for withdrawal of criminal case No. 541
of 2005 (Smt. Anjali Gupta s. Prashant
Gupta) under Section 125 of Code of
Criminal Procedure pending before the
Principal Judge, family court, Allahabad.
She further states that she will not claim
any kind of maintenance form petitioner
No. 3 in future also.

6. The petitioners are also agreeable
to the aforesaid terms of the compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
however urges that petitioner No. 3 has no
objection to the divorce decree being
granted, but as petitioner No. 3 is not in
Allahabad as he has to remain out of
station and sometimes out of the country
in connection with his employment in
Infosys Ltd., when he appears before the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad
to file his consent and absence of
objection to the prayer for divorce being
sought
by
respondent
No.
3,
the
concerned court may be directed to
dispose of the petition for divorce
speedily and not grant any unnecessary
adjournment.

7. Reiterating the following lines
from paragraph 10 of B.S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana, I think the interests of justice
would be met if we the prayer of parties is
acceded to and the criminal proceedings
and other litigation between the parties is
brought to an end. The lines read:

"In State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy and others ((1977) 2 SCC
699), considering the scope of inherent
power of quashing under Section 482, this
Court held that in the exercise of this
wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled to quash proceedings if it comes
to the conclusion that ends of justice so
require. It was observed that in a criminal
case, the veiled object behind a lame
prosecution, the very nature of the
material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would
justify the High Court in quashing the
proceeding in the interest of justice and
that the ends of justice are higher than the
ends of mere law though justice had got to
be administered according to laws made
by the legislature. This Court said that the
compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper
realization of the object and purpose of
the provision which seeks to save the
inherent powers of the High Court to do
justice between the State and its subjects,
it would be impossible to appreciate the
width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed
that there was no reasonable likelihood of
the accused being convicted of the
offence. What would happen to the trial of
the case where the wife does not support
the imputations made in the FIR of the
type in question. As earlier noticed, now
she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was
registered
at
her
instance
due
to
temperamental differences and implied
imputations. There may be many reasons
for not supporting the imputations. It may
be either for the reason that she has
resolved disputes with her husband and
his other family members and as a result
there of she has again started living with
her husband with whom she earlier had
differences or she has willingly parted
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
company and is living happily on her own
or has married someone else on earlier
marriage having been dissolved by
divorce on consent of parties or fails to
support the prosecution on some other
similar grounds. In such eventuality, there
would almost be no chance of conviction.
Would it then be proper to decline to
exercise of power of quashing on the
ground that it would be permitting the
parties to compound non-compoundable
offences. Answer clearly has to be in
'negative'. It would, however, be a
different matter if the High Court on facts
declines the prayer for quashing for any
valid
reasons
including
lack
of
bonafides."

8. In B.S. Joshi's case it has further
been observed in paragraph 8, that in an
appropriate case for securing the ends of
justice, the proceedings can be quashed
by the High Court in exercise of powers
under section 482 Cr.P.C. or even in
exercise of its extraordinary powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. In another decision of the apex
Court, Smt. Swati Verma v. Rajan Verma
and Ors, AIR 2004 SC 261, where similar
to the present case the disputes including
the
criminal
and
divorce
litigation
between the sparring spouses had been
decided on the basis of compromise and
where again the husband had paid Rs. 6
lakhs to his wife for the settlement, the
apex Court had quashed the criminal
proceedings under section 498-A, and 406
IPC before the Allahabad High Court
infructuous. In that case in paragraph 7
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed:

"7. Having perused the records
placed before us we are satisfied that the
marriage between the parties has broken
down irretrievably and with a view to
restore good relationship and to put a
quietus to all litigations between the
parties and not to leave any room for
future litigation, so that they may live
peacefully hereafter, and on the request of
the parties, in exercise of the power
vested in this Court under Art. 142 of the
Constitution of India, we allow the
application for divorce by mutual consent
filed before us under S. 13(B) of Hindu
Marriage Act and declare that the
marriage
solemnized
between
the
consenting. parties on 13th June, 2001 at
Delhi is hereby dissolved, and they are
granted a decree of divorce by mutual
consent."

10. Taking a cue from the aforesaid
decisions we think that the interest of
justice would be met if the FIR at Case
Crime No. 395 of 2005 and the 125
Cr.P.C. proceedings between the parties
are quashed by this Court.

11. As we feel that the parties have
amicably parted on the intervention of this
Court and the petitioner Prashant Gupta
has paid a substantial amount Rs. 6 lakhs
to arrive at a permanent settlement with
Anjali Gupta, the parties may now be
interested in getting on with their lives,
marrying someone else of their choices,
we therefore think that considering the
apparent irretrievable break down of their
marriage, and for putting a 'quietus to the
litigations' the Principal Judge Family
Court
may
also
consider
passing
appropriate orders in the petition for
divorce filed by Smt. Anjali Gupta most
expeditiously. It is directed that when
petitioner Prashant Gupta who works out
of station and who needs to travel abroad
appears before the Court concerned for
the purpose of filling his absence of
3All] Smt. Kamlesh V. Mukhya Nirwachan Ayuct and others 1157
objections to the prayer for divorce the
concerned Court should not grant any
unnecessary adjournment.

12. In this view of the matter, we
quash the criminal proceedings against
the petitioners in case crime No. 395 of
2005, under Sections 498-A/323/504/506
IPC read with Section 3⁄4 of Dowry
Prohibition
Act,
police
station
Colonelganj,
district
Allahabad.
We
further quash the proceedings under
section 125 Cr.P.C. in case No. 451 of
2005, pending before the Principal Judge,
Family court, Allahabad. We also direct
the
Principal
Judge,
Family
Court,
Allahabad not to grant any adjournment
on the date when petitioner No. 3 appears
before the Court for filing his consent and
no objection to the grant of a decree of
divorce to respondent No. 3 in her petition
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act against petitioner No.3, and to pass
appropriate orders very expeditiously,
The concerned Court is also directed to
pass appropriate orders in the proceedings
under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the light of
the orders passed in this writ petition. In
future also it is expected that the parties
shall not raise any claim or counter claim
against each other.
With these observations, this writ petition
is allowed.

Copy of the order may be given to
the parties by 27th May 2006 on payment
of usual costs. Application Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.266 of 2006

Smt. Kamlesh

...Petitioner
Versus
Mukya Nirwachan Ayuct, Rajya Nirwachan
Ayog, U.P. and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Prakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.N. Rai
Sri Rajendra Singh Parihar
S.C.

Constitution of India-Art. 226-Power of
re counting of Votes-election for the post
of
member
of
Block
Development
Committee-petitioner
secured
378
Votes- respondent no. 3 got 337-by
order dated 26.10.05 petitioner declared
successful
and
certificate
issuedsubsequent declaration in favour of
respondent no. 3-on the basis of recounting on the ground-the votes of
polling booth No. 132 was not countedheld-once
result
declared-certificate
issued-the election process come to an
end-subsequent
order
based
on
re
counting without jurisdiction.

Held: Para 8 & 11

The law on the issue involved in this
petition is well settled. The election law
is too technical; equity, justice etc. have
no role in such matters. The result had
been declared by the Returning Officer.
The
petitioner
had
been
declared
successful and the certificate to that
effect was also issued in her favour. In
such circumstances the Returning Officer
had become functus officio and the