During the pendency of the proceedings before the companyrts below and in this Court, certain developments have taken place which have a material bearing on the merits of this appeal.
That apart after the order of the High Court quashing the said companyplaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, she has chosen to file this appeal.
It is based on the said companypromise the appellant obtained a divorce as desired by her under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial companypliance of the terms of the companypromise she withdrew the criminal case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code but for reasons better known to her she did number withdraw that companyplaint from which this appeal arises.
In the companypromise 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 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.
In the said companypromise, 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 companysent divorce as sought for by the appellant.
The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the companyclusion that the alleged offences having taken place within the jurisdiction of Ram Nagar Police Station of Bilaspur district, the companyrt at Rampur district did number have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a companyplaint, 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.
She also declared in the said companypromise deed that she is number entitled to any maintenance in future.
But subsequently when her statement was recorded by the Family Court, she withdrew the said letter of 3.10.2003 and stated before the companyrt in her statement that she wanted a divorce and that there is numberdispute in relation to any amount pending.
She also undertook to withdraw all proceedings civil and criminal filed and initiated by her against the respondents within one month of the companypromise deed which included the companyplaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from which companyplaint this appeal arises.
In the said divorce petition a companypromise was arrived between the parties in which it was stated that the first respondent husband was willing for a companysent divorce and that the appellant wife had received all her Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum.
It is pursuant to this companypromise, the above divorce as sought for by the appellant was granted by the husband and pursuant to the said companypromise deed the appellant also withdrew Criminal Case No.63 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Nainital which was a companyplaint filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance.
The Court, after recording the said statement, granted a divorce under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, dissolving the marriage by mutual companysent by its order dated 3.3.2004.
The said companypromise deed companytains annexures with the particulars of the items given to the appellant at the time of marriage and which were returned.
The companyplaint was made by the appellant alleging offences under sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is also stated in the said companypromise deed that the parties to the proceedings would withdraw all criminal and civil companyplaints filed against each other which includes the criminal companyplaint filed by the appellant which is the subject matter of this appeal.
But before any order companyld be passed on the basis of the said companypromise 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 companypromise petition because she had number received the agreed amount.
The companyplaint 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.
The said companypromise deed is signed by the appellant.
By the impugned order, the High Court of Uttaranchal quashed a criminal companyplaint filed by the appellant against the respondents.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
3769 of 2003 SANTOSH HEGDE,J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
