Make your own free website on Tripod.com

                                                                    http://misuse498a.tripod.com  

                                             

  Judgment of Supreme Court of India

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
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.

                                                                        http://misuse498a.tripod.com  

 

 

dowry, dowry India, dowry law, dowry act, dowry, misuse dowry, abuse dowry, India dowry,498a, 498A, 498A law, India, India, Indian, IPC 498a, misuse 498A, abuse 498a, India 498a, 498a dowry, dowry 498A, dowry, false dowry, misuse dowry, misues dowry law, abuse dowry law, 498a, save indian family, families, divorce, dowry law, misuse 498a, abuse 498a, abuse dowry law, misuse dowry law,dowry, false dowry, dowry law, misuse 498a, abuse 498a, abuse dowry law, save indian family, families, divorce india, mutualdivorce,misuse dowry law,human right, family court, civil court, criminal court, criminal, kill, IPC 498A, 498a, human right, marriage, wedding, marry, engagement, life, death, wife harrasment, husband harrasment, kids, sex, Indian girl, dowry killing, dowry death, misuse of law, Indian law, bad law, abuse of law, 498, 498, 498, female burning, burn, supreme court, court, lawyer, Indian society, delhi, mumbai, nri, NRI,son-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, daugher-in-law, brother-in-law, bhabhi, pati, patni, sali, bahu, dewar, shaadi, dulhan, dulha, saas, kid, child marriage, men organisation, organization, women, judge, high court, district court, family fight, fight, India, female, male, India, law, dowryHindi matrimonial, hindi matrimony, matrimonial, Indian brides, hindi, Hindi matrimonial, parsi, Divorce, mutual divorce, legal, quashing, case, IPC 498a, matrimonials, marwadi, hindi matrimonial link, Indian matrimonial sites, hindi marriage halls, hindi, oriya, hindi brides, online hindi matrimony, hindi matrimonial website, matrimonial, assamese, Indian matrimonials, tamil, telugu, brides, grooms