Gunjan Gaur v. Manish Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR S.B.Civil Transfer Appl. No. 40 / 2015 Gunjan Gaur w/o Shri Manish Kumar Sharma, d/o Shri SureshChandra Sharma, B/c Sharma, age about 30 years, r/o A-51,Karni Nagar, Pawanpuri, Bikaner. ----Applicant (Non-Petitioner) Versus Manish Kumar s/o Shri Harish Kumar, B/c Sharma, r/o M-31,Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent(Petitioner) Connected With S.B.CIVIL TRANSFER APPL. No. 41 / 2015 Gunjan Gaur ----Petitioner Versus Manish Kumar ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat assisted by Sheetal Kumbhat. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment / Order 17/01/2017 The matter comes up upon an application for early hearing, the same is allowed. On request of counsel for both the parties the matter isheard and disposed off. These are two transfer petitions filed by the petitioner underSection 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transferring of therespective cases. Both the transfer petitions as agreed by partiesare being disposed off finally. This Court passed an order dated 18.11.2015 in thesetransfer petitions which reads as follows: “The parties have entered into a mutual settlement and thesettlement terms have been reduced into writing, the same istaken on record. To oversee the compliance of the terms of the settlement,the present transfer petitions are kept pending. In terms of saidagreement, it is considered expedient to direct the subordinatecourts and Investing Officer to keep proceedings in the casespending between the parties arising out of this matrimonialdispute stayed, and no further proceedings be taken without leaveof this Court. However, this order will not prevent the concernedFamily Court to deal with the mutual consent divorce petition filedby the parties under Section 13-B of the H.M. Act, which theyhave undertaken to file within two weeks from today.” The endeavour of the Court by passing such order was toensure and oversee the compliance of the terms of the settlemententered by the parties by mutual consent. It was considered theexpedient to direct the subordinate courts and InvestigatingOfficer to keep proceedings in the cases pending between the parties arising out of this matrimonial dispute stayed. This orderexcluded the proceedings under Section 13-B of the HinduMarriage Act. The case going on before the Family Court Bikanerin Civil Misc. Case No.23/2016 under Section 13-B of HinduMarriage Act 1958 has been decided by an order dated29.09.2016. The order of the Family Court also mentions the orderof this Court passed on 18.11.2015 as quoted above. Theaverments under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act has beenallowed and the marriage has been annulled by such order dated29.06.2016. A copy of the order dated 29.06.2016 has beenfurnished by the counsel for the respondent and the same is takenon the record. The terms of compromise is mentioned in orderdated 18.11.2015 are on record of the petition. As per the recordof the mutual settlement there are 7 litigations which still existbetween the parties in spite of there best efforts to get thosecases mutually closed. The petitioner and the respondent arepresent in the Court and have made joint prayer that allproceedings pertaining to the matrimonial discontentment shouldbe closed as the marriage itself has been annulled by an orderdated 21.09.2016. Counsel for both the parties have placedreliance on the judgment of this Court passed by the Hon’bleDivision Bench in D.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2185/2016 (AshokKumar Vs. Smt. Mamta) decided on 23.11.2016 as follows: “The criminal prosecutions filed by the partieswere obviously but a sequel to their plea for divorceand restitution of conjugal rights in an otherwiseacrimonius relationship. Undoubtedly, it only escalatedthe divide between them which has now ended in apeaceful settlement by which they have decided not tolive together and start their lives anew. To leave thecriminal prosecutions alive, in the facts andwere obviously but a sequel to their plea for divorceand restitution of conjugal rights in an otherwiseacrimonius relationship. Undoubtedly, it only escalatedthe divide between them which has now ended in apeaceful settlement by which they have decided not tolive together and start their lives anew. To leave thecriminal prosecutions alive, in the facts and circumstances of the case would be a travesty ofjustice and will only imperil the desire of the parties toerase their past and start life afresh. Any continuationof the criminal proceeding will definitely haveramifications on their future engaging their time andattention in useless pursuits hereinafter because oftheir having decided not to live as man and wife. In (2003) 4 SCC 675, B.S. Joshi vs. State ofHaryana dealing with the duty of the Court to exerciseinherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quashproceedings between the husband and wife like thepresent inter alia under Section 498 & 406 IPC, it wasobserved as follows: "12. The special features in such matrimonial mattersare evident. It becomes the duty of the Court toencourage genuine settlements of matrimonialdisputes. 13. ..........It was said that there has been an outburstof matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is asacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is toenable the young couple to settle down in life and livepeacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenlyerupt which often assume serious proportions resultingin commission of heinous crimes in which elders of thefamily are also involved with the result that those whocould have counselled and brought aboutrapprochement are rendered helpless on their beingarrayed as accused in the criminal case. There aremany other reasons which need not be mentionedhere for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so thatthe parties may ponder over their defaults andterminate their disputes amicably by mutualagreement instead of fighting it out in a court of lawwhere it takes years and years to conclude and in thatprocess the parties lose their "young" days in chasingtheir "cases" in different courts. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that theHigh Court in exercise of its inherent powers canquash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint andSection 320 of the Code does not limit or affect thepowers under Section 482 of the Code." Resultantly, the proceedings in Criminal Originalcase No.75/2013 pending before the Court of LearnedJudicial Magistrate, Pali and the proceedings in theprotest petition pending before the Learned AdditionalChief Judicial Magistrate, Pali consequent to FinalReport No.50/2015 submitted by the InvestigatingOfficer in FIR No.48/2015 filed by him under Sections420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC are both quashed. Both the appeals are dismissed. Since both the parties present in person along with theirrespective counsels are jointly of the view that they are notinterested in pursuing the litigation in courts below and suchpending litigation is now unnecessarily causing great hardshipupon the parties even when they have a peaceful settlement andresultant decree under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,has been passed on 29.09.2016, therefore continuation of anylitigation definitely have negative ramifications. Resultantly the proceedings in the following cases mentioned in the mutual settlement placed on record of this petition which are: Both the appeals are dismissed. Since both the parties present in person along with theirrespective counsels are jointly of the view that they are notinterested in pursuing the litigation in courts below and suchpending litigation is now unnecessarily causing great hardshipupon the parties even when they have a peaceful settlement andresultant decree under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,has been passed on 29.09.2016, therefore continuation of anylitigation definitely have negative ramifications. Resultantly the proceedings in the following cases mentioned in the mutual settlement placed on record of this petition which are: 1.Learned Family Court, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Manish Kumar Sharma Vs. Gunjan Gaur under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, Case No.629/2013.Sharma Vs. Gunjan Gaur under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, Case No.629/2013. 2.Learned Family Court, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Manish Kumar Sharma vs. Gunjan Gaur under section 26 Hindu Marriage Act, Case No.150/2013.Sharma vs. Gunjan Gaur under section 26 Hindu Marriage Act, Case No.150/2013. 3.Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur, Case No.668/2014.Case No.668/2014. 4.FIR No.19/2014, P.S. Mahila Thana (East) Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, pending under section 498A, 406, 323, IPC.Jaipur, pending under section 498A, 406, 323, IPC. 5.Complaint by Gunjan Gaur against Manish Kumar Sharma before Anti Corruption.before Anti Corruption. 6.All complaints by Suresh Chandra Sharma, Nitin Sharma andGunjan Gaur before SBBJ against Manish Kumar SharmaGunjan Gaur before SBBJ against Manish Kumar Sharma are quashed and set aside. (All cases referred above). Both the transfer petitions are accordingly disposed off. (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. CK Mishra