05 November 2004
Supreme Court
Download

RUCHI AGARWAL Vs AMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL .

Case number: Crl.A. No.-001274-001274 / 2004
Diary number: 13647 / 2003
Advocates: Vs SANJAY JAIN


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1274 of 2004

PETITIONER: Ruchi Agarwal                                            

RESPONDENT: Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors.                                

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/11/2004

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & S.B.Sinha

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(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

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.