Smt. Pushpa Shukla And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 7263 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Pushpa Shukla And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 May, 2025

Author: Deepak Verma

Bench: Deepak Verma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90554
 
Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13505 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Pushpa Shukla And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Krishna Murari Tripathi,Prashant Pratap Rao
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Kumar Rai,Lok Nath Shukla,Raj Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings as well as charge sheet dated 10.06.2019 in Special Sessions Trial No.1518 of 2019 (State Vs. Prateek Shukla & another), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act against applicant no.1 and Sections 376, 323, 328, 504, 506, 498-A, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act against applicant no.2, arising out of Case Crime No.27 of 2019, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Jhansi.

3. This Court vide order dated 09.09.2020 passed following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings as well as charge sheet dated 10.06.2019 in Special Sessions Trial No.1518 of 2019 (State Vs. Prateek Shukla & another), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act against applicant no.1 and Sections 376, 323, 328, 504, 506, 498-A, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act against applicant no.2, arising out of Case Crime No.27 of 2019, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Jhansi.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant no.2 is the husband, applicant no.1 is mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and the allegation levelled against them, are general and vague with no specificity. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464.

Similarly in Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2015) 11 SCC 260 the Apex Court again struck a note not to indiscriminately quash the proceedings against the relatives of the husband in a matrimonial dispute on the strength of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Paragraph-12 of Taramani Parakh (supra) reads as under:-

"12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2014 decided on 6.9.2014), it was observed: "9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 207], it was observed:-

"5.....A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."

The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role.

The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2000) 8 SCC 547], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P."

In view of the above, the matter requires consideration in respect of the applicant no.1.

Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.

List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Bench.

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case against the applicant no.1, namely, Smt. Pushpa Shukla shall remain stayed.

However, the prayer in respect of the applicant no.2 is refused. It is directed that if applicant no.2 appears and surrenders before the court below within two months from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, i.e, Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15609 of 2016 decided on 8.7.2016.

For a period of two months from today or till the applicant no.2 surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, he does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. "

4. Thereafter, applicant no. 2 challenged the order of this Court dated 09.09.2020 before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2024 (Prateek Shukla Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.) and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 quashed the entire proceedings pending between the parties on account of compromise entered into between the parties and passed following order:

"1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant, Prateek Shukla (Husband), challenging the final judgment dated 09.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscl. Application No.13505 of 2020, and order dated 30.09.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Correction Application in Application under Section 482 No. 13505/2020, whereby, the application of the appellant seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings as well as the charge sheet filed in Special Sessions Trial No. 1518 of 2019 was dismissed.

2. During the pendency of the present appeal, the parties have amicably settled their disputes and placed on record the Settlement Agreement dated 28.05.2024. They have filed an application being I.A. No. 16414/2025 seeking quashing of all the proceedings filed by both the parties against each other, as stated in para 8 of the said application and further sought a decree of divorce by mutual consent by invoking Article-142 of the Constitution of India.

3. Today, both the parties are present in the Court and confirmed the above agreement.

4. The Settlement Agreement dated 28.05.2024 which is annexed in I.A. 151321/2024 shall be treated as a part of the present order.

5. In view of the above, since, the marriage between the parties has reached to the stage of irretrievably breakdown, this is a fit case to invoke the powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and dissolve the marriage to do complete justice between the parties.

6. Hence, it is declared that the marriage between the appellant-Prateek Shukla, and the respondent no.2-Ankita Diwaker, is dissolved by mutual consent.

7. As a consequence, all the complaints/ proceedings filed by the parties against each other as mentioned in paragraph 8 of I.A. No.16414/2025 shall stand closed/quashed.

8. The Registry shall draw a decree of divorce in terms of this order and the Settlement Agreement dated 28.05.2024.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Courts, before which the cases/complaints/proceedings, are pending. The parties shall also approach the concerned Courts in that regard.

10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

6. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

7. In view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the entire criminal proceedings as well as charge sheet dated 10.06.2019 in Special Sessions Trial No.1518 of 2019 (State Vs. Prateek Shukla & another), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act against applicant no.1 and Sections 376, 323, 328, 504, 506, 498-A, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act against applicant no.2, arising out of Case Crime No.27 of 2019, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Jhansi, against the applicants are hereby quashed.

8. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed.

Order Date :- 27.5.2025

Aditya