Ruchi
Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors [2004] Insc 684 (5 November 2004)
N.Santosh Hegde & S.B.Sinha (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 3769 of 2003) SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
By the impugned order, the High Court of Uttaranchal quashed a criminal
complaint filed by the appellant against the respondents. The complaint was
made by the appellant alleging offences under sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC,
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court by the
impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the alleged offences having taken
place within the jurisdiction of Ram Nagar Police Station of Bilaspur district,
the court at Rampur district did not have the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain a complaint, hence, while quashing the chargesheet and the summoning
order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, transferred the investigation
of the case to Police Station Bilaspur, district Rampur.
It is the above order of the High Court that is under challenge before us in
this appeal. During the pendency of the proceedings before the courts below and
in this Court, certain developments have taken place which have a material
bearing on the merits of this appeal. The complaint which the appellant herein
filed is dated 10.4.2002. Thereafter, a divorce petition was filed by the
appellant-wife before the Family Court at Nainital. In the said divorce
petition a compromise was arrived between the parties in which it was stated
that the first respondent-husband was willing for a consent divorce and that
the appellant-wife had received all her Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum.
She also declared in the said compromise deed that she is not entitled to any
maintenance in future. It is also stated in the said compromise deed that the
parties to the proceedings would withdraw all criminal and civil complaints
filed against each other which includes the criminal complaint filed by the
appellant which is the subject matter of this appeal. The said compromise deed
contains annexures with the particulars of the items given to the appellant at
the time of marriage and which were returned. The said compromise deed is
signed by the appellant. But before any order could be passed on the basis of
the said compromise petition, the appellant herein wrote a letter to the Family
Court at Nainital which was received by the Family Court on 3.10.2003 wherein
it was stated that she was withdrawing the compromise petition because she had
not received the agreed amount. But subsequently when her statement was
recorded by the Family Court, she withdrew the said letter of 3.10.2003 and
stated before the court in her statement that she wanted a divorce and that
there is no dispute in relation to any amount pending. The Court, after recording
the said statement, granted a divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
Act, dissolving the marriage by mutual consent by its order dated 3.3.2004.
In the compromise petition, referred to herein above, both the parties had
agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed by each against the
other. It is pursuant to this compromise, the above divorce as sought for by
the appellant was granted by the husband and pursuant to the said compromise
deed the appellant also withdrew Criminal Case No.63 of 2002 on the file of the
Family Court, Nainital which was a complaint filed under Section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. It is on the basis of the submission
made on behalf of the appellant and on the basis of the terms of the
compromise, said case came to be dismissed.
However, so far as the complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, which is the
subject matter of this appeal, the appellant did not take any steps to withdraw
the same. It is in those circumstances, a quashing petition was filed before
the High Court which came to be partially allowed on the ground of the
territorial jurisdiction, against the said order the appellant has preferred this
appeal.
From the above narrated facts, it is clear that in the compromise petition
filed before the Family Court, the appellant admitted that she has received
Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be entitled to
maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook to withdraw all
proceedings civil and criminal filed and initiated by her against the
respondents within one month of the compromise deed which included the
complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint this appeal arises. In the said
compromise, the respondent- husband agreed to withdraw his petition filed under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Senior Judge, Civil
Division, Rampur and also agreed to give a consent divorce as sought for by the
appellant.
It is based on the said compromise the appellant obtained a divorce as
desired by her under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial
compliance of the terms of the compromise she withdrew the criminal case filed
under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code but for reasons better known
to her she did not withdraw that complaint from which this appeal arises. That
apart after the order of the High Court quashing the said complaint on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction, she has chosen to file this appeal. It is
in this background, we will have to appreciate the merits of this appeal.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though
the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above-mentioned terms in
it, the same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat
and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her
Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in
the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the
respondent-husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had
performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the
appellant partially performed her part of the obligations by withdrawing her
criminal complaint filed under Section 125. It is true that she had made a
complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings
were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew
the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the
compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings
were dropped and a divorce was obtained.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the
relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise,
we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In
our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint
from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the
respondents.
In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the
appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal
proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we
are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while
dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings arising from the Criminal Case
No.Cr.No.224/2003 registered in Police Station, Bilaspur, (Distt.Rampur) filed
under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly.
The appeal is disposed of.
Back