HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31194 of 2023

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for

the applicants, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and

perused the record.

3. The prayers made in the present application under Section

482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants Puneet Kishore and Saroj

Gupta, are as under:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble

court be pleased to pass an order giving effect to an order dated

03.08.2021 passed under Section 406 Cr.P.C. by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in transfer application no.260 of 2000 filed by

OP No. 2 which was disposed of on the basis of compromise

dated 03.08.2001 by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.08.2001

and OP No.2 be directed accordingly to do the needful or to

pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit

and proper.

It is further prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an

interim order staying the further proceedings of Case No. 417

of 2021, State vs. Puneet Kishore and others, under Section

498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station

Versus

Counsel for Applicant(s):Prakash Chandra Srivastava,

Vishnu Prakash

Counsel for Opposite Party(s):G.A.

Puneet Kishore And Another

.....Applicant(s)

State Of U.P. And Another

.....Opposite

Party(s)

Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Civil

Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C. (Offence Against Women),

District Saharanpur, till further order of this Court or to pass

any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and

proper."

4. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following

order on 03.10.2023:-

"Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned

A.G.A. for the State.

The present application has been filed for staying the proceedings of Case

No. 417 of 2021 (State vs. Puneet Kishore and others), u/s 498-A I.P.C. and

3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, pending before Civil

Judge (J.D.), F.T.C. (Offence against women), District Saharanpur and for

giving effect to an order dated 3.8.2001 passed by the Apex Court in

Transfer Petition (C) No. 260 of 2000 (Anjana Kishore vs. Puneet Kishore).

Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that in pursuance of the

order dated 3.8.2001 of the Apex Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 260 of

2000 (Anjana Kishore vs. Puneet Kishore), a compromise was entered into

between the parties which is also the part of the order of the Apex Court. In

pursuance of that compromise, the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai has

also granted divorce decree and the entire amount deposited by the

applicants in pursuance of the order of the Apex Court, has also been

released in favour of opposite party No.2. However, the opposite party

No.2 has not withdrawn the proceeding u/s 498-A I.P.C., pending in the

Court of C.J.M., Saharanpur in pursuance of the order of the Apex Court

as well as the compromise entered into between the parties before the

Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to opposite party No.2.

List in the week commencing 30.10.2023 before appropriate Bench.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the

applicants in Case No. 417 of 2021 (State vs. Puneet Kishore and others),

u/s 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur,

pending before Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C. (Offence against women), District

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

2

Saharanpur.

This matter shall not be treated as part heard or tied up with this Bench."

5. As per office report dated 04.04.2026 notice has been served

personally on the opposite party no. 2. The records show that a

report dated 02.11.2023 of C.J.M., Saharanpur has been

received which states that notice has been served personally on

the opposite party no. 2. Despite service no one appears on her

behalf even when the matter has been taken up in the revised

call. 

6. The dispute in the present matter is matrimonial in nature.

Previously the applicants had filed a Criminal Misc.

Application U/S 482 No.8982 of 2005, Punit Kishor and 03

others vs. State of U.P. and another, in which further

proceedings of case as pending before the trial court concerned,

were stayed vide order dated 20.07.2005 passed by another

Bench of this Court. The said order reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and

learned AGA. for the State.

Counsel for the applicants submits that the parties

to the dispute had already entered into a

compromise before the Apex Court in the Transfer

petition. A copy of the order of transfer petition

(civil) no.260 of 2000 is annexed as annexure no. 2

to the affidavit filed in support of this application.

However, there is nothing to show that the criminal

proceedings stood resolved at the Apex Court.

Counsel for the applicants has brought a copy of the

compromise application where in paragraph no.2, it

has been stated that the parties have withdrawn all

the criminal and civil proceedines pending in the

court. In compliance to the aforesaid compromise,

the applicants who were already granted interim

order in criminal misc. application no 5512 of 2000

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

3

(Annexure No 1) did not pass this application and

was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,

issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 returnable at

an early date. She may file counter allidavit within

three weeks from the date of receipt of notice.

Learned AGA. shall also file counter affidavit within

four weeks from today. Rejoinder affidavit, if any,

may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List immediately on expiry of the aforesaid period.

Meanwhile, further proceedings in case по 2222 of

2000, State Vs. Punit Kishor under Section 498-A

I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station

Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, pending in the

count of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur

shall remain stayed."

7. The said petition was subsequently dismissed in default vide

order dated 19.5.2018 passed by another Bench of this Court

and interim order was vacated. The said order reads as under:-

"Case called out in the revised list.

None present on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Sri R.K.

Maurya, learned A.G.A. is present.

It seems that the cause of action for filing this application has become

infructuous.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed in default.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated."

8. Thus the present petition has been filed before this Court by

02 of the said applicants. 

9. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that

Transfer Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2000, Anjana Kishore vs.

Puneet Kishore was filed before the Apex Court in which an

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

4

order dated 03.08.2001 was passed by which the same was

disposed of and compromise entered into between the parties

was considered in the same. The said order reads as under:-

"This transfer petition seeks transfer of divorce

petition No. A-509/2000 titled "Sri Punit Kishore Vs.

Smt. Anjana Kishore" filed by the respondent-

husband before the Family Court at Bandra,

Mumbai. The transfer is sought to the Family Court

at Saharanpur. After notice was issued in this

petition, efforts were made for settlement. The

parties have filed the Terms of Compromise in this

Court. The same are taken on record.

In terms of paras 3 and 4 of the Terms of

Compromise, four demand drafts totalling to Rs.

7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs) only (3 demand

drafts of Rs.2,00,000/- each and one demand draft of

Rs.1,00,000/-) payable at Saharanpur have been

presented in Court today by the respondent’s

counsel. The demand drafts are in the name of the

petitioner. There is also provision in the Terms of

Compromise with regard to the custody and visiting

rights of the parties to the child born out of

marriage. Both the parties, who are also personally

present in Court, have now agreed to get divorce by

mutual consent.

In view of the developments which have taken place

during the pendency of proceedings in this Court,

we decline to transfer the case from Family Court at

Bandra, Mumbai to the Family Court at

Saharanpur. We, however, direct that as agreed to

by learned counsel for the parties, a joint petition

shall be filed by the parties before the Family Court

at Bandra, Mumbai for grant of divorce by mutual

consent. Terms of compromise as filed before us

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

5

shall also accompany the joint petition. An

application for curtailment of time for grant of

divorce shall also be filed alongwith the joint

petition. On such application being moved the

Family Court may, dispensing with the need of

waiting for six months, which is required otherwise

by sub-Section (2) of Section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, pass final order on the petition

with in such time as it may deem fit. This direction

we are making under Article 142 of Constitution, as

looking at the facts and circumstances of the case

emerging from pleadings of the parties and

disclosed during the course of hearing, we are

satisfied of the need of making such a direction to do

complete justice in the case. The parties shall

present themselves before the learned Presiding

Officer, Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai on

17.9.2001 when the learned Presiding Judge shall

take further appropriate steps.

The four demand drafts as referred to above, shall

remain in the custody of Registrar (Judicial) of this

Court and on the petitioner furnishing a copy of the

order of the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai

regarding grant of divorce, the drafts shall be

handed over to her.

With the above observations, the transfer petition is

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

insofar as this petition is concerned."

10. A compromise between the parties dated 03.08.2001 was

filed before the Apex Court. Pursuant to the order of the Apex

Court the Judge, Family Court No. 6, Mumbai at Bandra

dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of

divorce under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act vide order

dated 05.10.2001 in M.J. Petition No.A/509/2000, Shri Puneet

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

6

Kishore vs. Smt. Anjana Kishore. The said order reads as

under:-

"Whereas the original petition was filed by

petitioner husband for divorce on the ground of

cruelty. Respondent appeared before the court. Both

the parties have filed a joint application to convert

the original petition for divorce by mutual consent.

Both the parties have singed the said application.

The petitioner(ori. respondent) had filed a transfer

petition in Hon'ble Supreme Court and both of them

were present in the supreme court where they

agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. Both of

them have singed the consent terms in the Supreme

Court and, the copy of the said consent terms is

produced by them. They have stated before the court

that they have singed the said consent terms

voluntarily, without any force or coercion.

Whereas both the parties stated before the court that

they got married on 19th November, 1989 at

Shaharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, according to Hindu

Vedic rites. After the marriage they resided together

at the matrimonial house at Agartala in Tripura

State initially and thereafter at Kandivli, Mumbai.

There is one son by name 'Chiranjeev' aged 6 years

born out of the wedlock. Said son is in care and

custody of petitioner. And because of the

temperamental differences they could not stay

together and they started residing separately from

each other since 12th October 99 onwards.

This petition came for hearing before Smt.B.Y.

Parikh, Judge, Family Court No.6, Mumbai at

Bandra and upon hearing of both the parties in

persons, the court has passed the following order on

5th October, 2001.

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

7

The converted petition is allowed.

The marriage solemnized between the parties on

19th November, 1989 is hereby dissolved by decree

of divorce u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955.

The persanent custody of their minor son

'Chiranjeev' shall remain with the petitioner/father.

Consent terms at Exh.12 to form part of the decree.

No order as to costs.

CONSENT TERMS

1. Both the parties have agreed that the marriage

between the parties be dissolved an irreconcilable.

2. Both the parties will withdraw all Civil and

Criminal cases pending at Bombay, Allahabad and

elsewhere.

3. Petitioner (wife) have received in the court, 6 lakh

rupees by way of 3 demand drafts of 2 lakhs each

payable at Saharanpur lump sum permanent

alimony. She will not claim any further alimony.

4. The petitioner (wife) has further received one lakh

rupees by way demand draft payable at Saharanpur

as expenses of visiting the child.

5. The respondent (father)will bring the child(son of

6 years) to Delhi after every 3 months and hand

over the child to his mother at New Delhi Railway

station in the morning and receive back in the

evening, after due prior notice of one week. The

child will stay with the father.

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

8

6. The son at his option, may join his mother at

Saharanpur during vocation.

7. The mother (petitioner) may visit the son at

Bombay whenever she like after one week's prior

notice.

8. The petitioner has received back all her jewellery

(stridhan) and nothing remains with the respondent.

9. Both the parties will inform the change of

address, if any. "

11. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that an

application was filed before the trial court concerned by the

applicants since the parties have entered into compromise,

praying that the present matter may be closed  which has been

dismissed vide order dated 30.5.2005 passed by the C.J.M.,

Saharanpur. The said order has been placed before the Court

which is annexure no. 5 to the affidavit in support of this

application. It is submitted that thus the present petition has

been filed by the applicants with the aforesaid prayers which

may be allowed. 

12. The facts thus which emerge out as of now in the present

matter are as under:-

(A) A Transfer Petition (C) No. 260 of 2000 was filed before

the Apex Court which was decided vide order dated 03.8.2001.

(B) A compromise dated 03.08.2001 was filed before the Apex

Court and on considering the same the said transfer petition

was decided on the said date.

(C) The petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act

was allowed vide judgement and order dated 05.10.2001by the

Family Court concerned in compliance of the directions of the

Apex Court dated 03.08.2001 and compromise dated

03.08.2001. 

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

9

(D) An Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8982 of 2005,was

filed before this Court by the applicant- Puneet Kishore and

three others, challenging the proceedings of the said case. The

disclosure of the said petition has been made in para-19 of the

affidavit in support of the present application, which reads as

under:- 

"19. That against order dated 30.05.2005 the applicants, his

deceased father and sister moved an application under Section

482 Cr.P.C. having its numbered as 8982 of 2005 before this

Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated

20.07.2005 staying the further proceeding od 2222 of 2000

pending in the court of CJM, Saharanpur. The true copy of

order dated 20.07.2005 is being annexed herewith and is

marked as Annexure 6 to the affidavit."

(E) The said petition stood  dismissed in default vide order

dated 19.5.2018. The disclosure of the same is in para-20 of the

affidavit in support of this application, which reads as under:-

"20. That it is most unfortunate that on 19.05.2018 the

application no.8982 of 2005 was dismissed and default by

Hon'ble J. D.K. Singh and interim order was vacated. The true

copy of order dated 19.05.2018 is being annexed herewith, is

marked as Annexure 7 to the affidavit."

(F) Subsequently after 05 years the present petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants on

11.08.2023 with the prayers as aforesaid.

13. The facts that the grounds as are being pleaded in the

present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were available to

the applicants even earlier is not disputed by learned counsel

for the applicant. The same is also evident from the order dated

20.07.2005 passed by another Bench of this Court in

an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8982 of 2005. The said

petition stood dismissed in default. Reference and even

arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants do not

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

10

show any effort to get the same restored and to ventilate the

cause therein further. Learned counsel for the applicants was

asked as to whether any efforts have been taken by him in the

same, to which he states that no such efforts have been taken

but the present petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to pass an order to give effect to the order dated

03.08.2001 of the Apex Court while exercising powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

14. The law with regards to such situation is quite clear. The

grounds/pleas that were available to be raised earlier can be

raised in a subsequent petition or not, the Apex Court in the

case of M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan : 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1498 took up a question for consideration which

reads as under:

“11. The short question that arises for our

consideration is “Whether a second quashing

petition under Section 482 CrPC would be

maintainable on the grounds/pleas that were

available to be raised even at the time of

filing/decision of the first quashing petition ?””

The matter was the finally decided as under:

“13. This Court in catena of judgments has held that

it is not open to an accused person to raise one plea

after the other, by repeatedly invoking the inherent

jurisdiction of the High Court under

Section 482 CrPC, though all such pleas were very

much available to him even at the first instance. We

may hasten to add that there is no sweeping rule to

the effect that a second quashing petition under

Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable and its

maintainability will depend on the facts and

circumstances of each case. However, the onus to

show that there arose a change in circumstances

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

11

warranting entertainment of a subsequent quashing

petition would be on the person filing the said

petition. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the

observations made by this Court in the case of

Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP,  2023 SCC

OnLine SC 1399, which are extracted below for

ready reference:—

“11. …… Though it is clear that there can be no

blanket rule that a second petition under

Section 482 Cr. P.C. would not lie in any situation

and it would depend upon the facts and

circumstances of the individual case, it is not open

to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the

other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High

Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C., though all such

pleas were very much available even at the first

instance. Permitting the filing of successive

petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. ignoring this

principle would enable an ingenious accused to

effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit

his own interest and convenience, by filing one

petition after another under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,

irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such

abuse of process cannot be permitted.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

14. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the

order passed by the High Court in the second

quashing petition amounted to review (plain and

simple) of the earlier order passed by the co-

ordinate bench of the High Court in the first

quashing petition, since there was admittedly no

change in circumstances and no new grounds/pleas

became available to the accused-respondents, after

passing of the order of dismissal in the first

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

12

quashing petition. The order passed by the High

Court is in gross disregard to all tenets of law as

Section 362 CrPC expressly bars review of a

judgment or final order disposing of a case except to

correct some clerical or arithmetical error.

15. This Court has time and again held that the High

Courts while exercising their inherent jurisdiction

under Section 482 CrPC cannot override a specific

bar laid down by other provisions of CrPC, i.e., to

say that the High Court is not empowered to review

its own decision under the purported exercise of its

inherent powers. To fortify the aforesaid conclusion,

we may gainfully refer to the observations made by

this Court in the case of Simrikhia v. Dolley

Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC

437, the relevant portions whereof are quoted below

for ease of reference:

“6. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal

Affairs v. Mohan Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706, this

Court held that Section 561A preserves the inherent

power of the High Court to make such orders as it

deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the

Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High

Court must therefore exercise its inherent powers

having regard to the situation prevailing at the

particular point of time when its inherent

jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. In that case the

facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of the

subsequent application were clearly different from

what they were at the time of the earlier application.

The question as to the scope and ambit of the

inherent power of the High Court vis-a-vis an

earlier order made by it was, therefore, not

concluded by this decision.

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

13

7. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

cannot be invoked to override bar of review u/s

362. It is clearly stated in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare

Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 500 that the inherent power of

the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which

is specifically prohibited by the Code. The law is

therefore clear that the inherent power cannot be

exercised for doing that which cannot be done on

account of the bar under other provisions of the

Code. The court is not empowered to review its own

decision under the purported exercise of inherent

power. We find that the impugned order in this case

is in effect one reviewing the earlier order on a

reconsideration of the same materials. The High

Court has grievously erred in doing so. Even on

merits, we do not find any compelling reasons to

quash the proceedings at that stage.”

(Emphasis supplied)

16. In the instant case, the quashing by the High

Court of a similar complaint, i.e., Criminal

Complaint No. 41 of 2015 filed by the complainant

against the accused-respondents in respect of

properties situated at Thanjavur vide order dated

9th March, 2020 was an event that happened well

before the dismissal of the first quashing petition

under Section 482 CrPC and the said ground/plea

was manifestly available to the accused-respondents

while seeking adjudication of the first quashing

petition. That being the situation, the accused-

respondents were not at liberty to invoke the

inherent jurisdiction of the High Court raising the

aforesaid ground/plea at a later point of time by

filing the second quashing petition.”

15. The situation in the present matter is even slightly distinct

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

14

from the case of M.C. Ravikumar (Supra) inasmuch as in the

present case the ground of matter being settled and a

compromise has been drawn and also an order of the Apex

Court was already passed, was agitated in the petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. which stood dismissed in default and no

action was taken to get the same restored and then pursue the

same and subsequently after five (5) years by the present

prayers this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

filed.

16. In the opinion of the Court this petition thus is not

maintainable and as such the same is dismissed.  

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 

18. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.  

19. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the

concerned trial court/District Judge within two weeks from

today for information and necessary action.  

(Samit Gopal,J.)

April 6, 2026

Naresh

A482 No. 31194 of 2023

15