Neeraj Kumar vs Kalpana
2022 Latest Caselaw 3316 MP

                             -( 1 )-


             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   BENCH AT GWALIOR

               Misc. Criminal Case No. 7809/2016

             (Neeraj Kumar & Others Vs. Kalpana)

Gwalior dated 09.03.2022.

      Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
      Shri   K.S.Tomar,    learned     Public   Prosecutor    for   the
respondents/State.

Shri M.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 25.06.2016 passed by First

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No.

180/2014 whereby the order dated 17.07.2014 passed in private

complaint for the offence under Sections 323, 294, 506-B and 498-A

of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been set aside

and the matter has been remanded.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioner No.1-Neeraj

solemnized marriage with Kalpana on 31.01.2005. Both the parties

lived together for a period of eight years and during their wedlock a

girl child was born on 2.3.2006. After eight years respondent

preferred a complaint against petitioner, his father Surendra Prasad,

sister Vijaylaxmi and Rashmi alleging domestic violence and cruelty.

Lateron the respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioner

under sections 323, 294, 506-B, 498-A of IPC and section 3,4 of

-( 2 )-

Dowry prohibition Act. The said complaint preferred by the

respondent was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the said

complaint, the respondent preferred revision before the First

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. The said Court allowed the

petition and remanded back the matter to the Magistrate observing

that opportunity of hearing be afforded to the parties and then the

order be passed. The order passed by Revisional Court is under

challenge before this Court.

3. Thereafter, in the year 2017 the petitioner preferred a petition

under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act before the Family Court,

Etawa. During pendency of the petition, the parties amicably

resolved the dispute and it was decided that permanent alimony of

Rs.5,00,000/- be paid to the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife

stated on affidavit that she will withdraw the case filed in Bhind

under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. The petitioner, as agreed, paid the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

to the respondent-wife. Considering the settlement arrived at by the

parties, the Family Court passed a decree of divorce. Despite

acceptance of permanent alimony and settlement between the parties

that she will withdraw the case filed against petitioner-husband and

his relatives, she is not turning up before the learned trial Court to

withdraw the case under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3,4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, it is prayed that by allowing this

-( 3 )-

petition, the impugned order dated 25.06.2016 passed by Revisional

Court in Criminal Revision No.180/2014 be quashed.

4. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2, Shri M.L.Yadav, who

is present in person has no objection if the petition of the petitioner is

allowed.

5. On going through the documents filed in support of the

petition, it is not disputed that marriage between petitioner No.1 and

respondent was solemnized in the year 2005. Due to their wedlock

one girl child was born. After eight years respondent filed a

domestic violence complaint before the Family Court. On going

through the record it also emerges that on the complaint of domestic

violence on 25.4.2015 in Lok Adalat between the parties settlement

occurred and the case of domestic violence was dismissed and the

complaint filed by the respondent under section 498-A IPC and

sections 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was also dismissed by

concerned Magistrate. Against this the respondent filed revision. By

the impugned order, learned First Additional Sessions Judge

remanded back the matter to the Magistrate after affording

opportunity to both the parties.

6. In 2017, petitioner filed a divorce petition before the Family

Court, Etawa. During pendency of this divorce petition, settlement

was occurred between the petitioner No.1 and respondent and it was

decided that if petitioner pay Rs.5,00,000/- as permanent alimony to

-( 4 )-

the respondent, she will take back all the cases including complaint

case pending before the Magistrate Bhind and section 125 Cr.P.C. for

maintenance. To this effect she has also filed an affidavit before the

Family Court. The Family Court in its judgment at page 13 has

taken note of this fact that she has filed an affidavit and has received

Bank Draft of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner. So far as the

encasement of Rs.5,00,000/- is concerned, petitioner has filed Bank

statement which shows that Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred.

7. Looking to the aforesaid facts and admitted position of the

case and no objection by Advocate of the respondent No.2, this

Court find that it is a fit case in which inherent powers under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked. With the aforesaid discussion, the

petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order as well as all the

consequential complaints filed by the respondent No.2 pending

before the Magistrate stand quashed.

                                             (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
vv                                                   Judge


      VALSALA
      VASUDEVAN
      2022.03.11
      11:25:08
      +05'30'