A.Mateen - (1.) HEARD Sri Mridul Rakesh learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Virendra Bhatia, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THIS petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482, Cr. P.C., praying therein that the proceedings relating to Case No. 464 of 2001 (Crime No. 240 of 2000), State v. Vivek Mehrotra and others, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow under Sections 498A, 323, 504, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act of police station Ghazipur, district Lucknow be quashed. It has also been prayed that the order dated 9.4.2001 contained in Annexure-3 passed by the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, taking cognizance and summoning petitioners under the aforesaid sections be also quashed. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No. 2, namely, Smt. Puneeta Mehrotra wife of Vivek Mehrotra on 30.1.2000 at police station Colonelganj, Allahabad, against the petitioners Vivek Mehrotra, Smt. Pushpa Mehrotra and Pushkar Narain Mehrotra (P. N. Mehrotra) which was registered as Crime No. 28 of 2000 at P.S. Colonelganj, Allahabad under Section 498A, 504, 323, I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. This Crime Case No. 28 of 2000 of P.S. Colonelganj, Allahabad, was transferred to police station Ghazipur, Lucknow for the purpose of investigation. Since investigation agency of police station Colonelganj, Allahabad, was of the view that assertion and allegation in the F.I.R. indicate that cause of action relates to district Lucknow, as such, the same was transferred to police station Ghazipur, Lucknow, which was renumbered as Case Crime No. 240 of 2000 under Sections 323, 504, 498A, I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at police station Ghazipur, Lucknow. It will also be not out of place to indicate that respondent No. 2, namely, Ms. Puneeta Capoor (earlier she used to write Puneeta Mehrotra as indicated by her in the F.I.R. lodged vide Case Crime No. 240 of 2000 vide Annexure-1). As such, hereinafter she will be referred to as Smt. Puneeta Mehrotra.
(3.) AFTER investigation since investigating agency of police station Ghazipur, Lucknow found allegation so levelled on the basis of investigation to be true, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners, namely, Vivek Mehrotra, Smt. Pushpa Mehrotra and P. N. Mehrotra under Sections 498A, 504, 324, I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act upon which the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the same and summoned the petitioners vide order dated 9.4.2001 contained in Annexure-3 to the petition. It is also relevant to point out here that Vivek Mehrotra (petitioner No. 1) is husband of complainant Smt. Puneeta Mehrotra (opposite party No. 2) and Pushkar Narain Mehrotra and Smt. Pushpa Mehrotra are father-in-law and mother-in-law of Smt. Puneeta Mehrotra (opposite party No. 2) and parents of Vivek Mehrotra. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court by means of Annexure-4 that Smt. Puneeta Mehrotra had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Allahabad vide Case No. 11 of 2001 and the same has been decreed ex parte vide judgment and order dated 19.8.2002. Even the opposite party No. 2, namely, Smt. Puneeta Mehrotra complainant of Crime No. 240 of 2000 had moved an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. for maintenance against her husband Vivek Mehrotra, petitioner No. 1 in the present case, which was registered as Case No. 511 of 1999 in the Court of Family Judge, Allahabad which was also got dismissed as withdrawn since the parties had settled the matter outside the Court. Copy of the said judgment and order passed by family court, dated 3.8.2002 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the present petition. Even the Criminal Complaint Case No. 11 of 2001 filed by Smt. Puneeta Mehrotra against her husband Vivek Mehrotra and others under Sections 294, 495, 109, I.P.C. which was pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, was also got dismissed as not pressed by Smt. Puneeta Mehrotra (opposite party No. 2) on the ground that parties have compromised the dispute out of Court and since the decree for divorce has also been granted by family court, as such Smt. Puneeta Mehrotra does not want to press her complaint. As such, the said complaint was dismissed and the accused persons in the said complaint were discharged under Section 245 (2), Cr. P.C. It has also been stated by the parties in the present petition that since both the parties have exchanged all the valuables and belongings received by them before or at the time of or after marriage to their full satisfaction and both the parties, i.e., the petitioners on one hand and Smt. Puneeta Mehrotra (now Ms. Puneeta Capoor) have no claim against each other and since all the cases between the parties as referred to above have been disposed of and no other dispute exists between them except Criminal Misc. Case No. 464 of 2001 arising out of Crime No. 240 of 2000 under Sections 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Ghazipur, Lucknow in which the petitioners have been summoned, the proceedings thereof if be allowed to continue shall be a sham and shall be of no value, as such, the same be quashed.;