PUNEET KISHORE AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31194 of 2023

Puneet Kishore And Another
                                                .....Applicant(s)
                             Versus

State Of U.P. And Another
                                                    .....Opposite
                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Prakash Chandra Srivastava,
                                Vishnu Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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
                                                                    A482 No. 31194 of 2023
                                  2


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
                                  3


     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
                                   4


     (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
                        5


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
                         6


     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
                        7


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
                    8


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
                         9


     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
                         10


(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
                        11


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
                    12


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
                    13


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
                         14


     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
                                                                  15


                                        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




Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad