Supreme Court of India
Deepti Sharma vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 17 December, 2024
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
2024 INSC 991 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. OF 2024
@ DIARY NO.21764 OF 2022
DEEPTI SHARMA …APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. Delay in filing as well as in refiling stands condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. In the present case, on the past few dates, the appellant has
taken this Court to the long history of the case. The appellant
was married to the respondent in the year 2006 and later she
was successful in getting a decree of divorce on ground of cruelty
in the year 2016.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
However, the appellant before this Court has challenged the
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2024.12.17
16:50:24 IST
Reason:
order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High
2Court of Judicature of Allahabad, which was passed on a Petition
under Section 482 CrPC filed by the appellant before the High
Court. Usually a Section 482 CrPC petition, as per the rules of
the High Court goes before a Single Judge, but in the present
case it was decided by a Division Bench of the High Court and
from the order it is so reflected that it was on the direction of the
Apex Court. There is indeed an order of this Court dated
30.09.2019, which was passed in a Special Leave Petition filed
by the present appellant in an earlier round of litigation. The
order reads as under:
“1. We have heard the petitioner-in-person as well
as the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. It is submitted that First Appeal No.275/2019 is
pending in the High Court and the next date fixed
for hearing is 15.10.2019.
3. It is also pointed out that Criminal Appeal
No.482(A)- 29622/2019 is pending for hearing and
the next date fixed for hearing in the High Court is
14.10.2019 and costs of Rs.10,000/- has been
imposed upon the respondent on 23.09.2019 for
dragging the case and not filing counter affidavit.
4. It is also pointed out that for violation of the
interim maintenance order dated 22.07.2016 and
not paying monthly amount of maintenance,
Contempt Petition No.6653/2018 with connected
CMP No.6662/2018 are pending in the High Court.
3
5. It is pointed out that criminal Case No.40/2016
under Section 406, 504, 506, 323 IPC is also
pending against the opposite party before the Trial
Court i.e. ACJM-12, Agra.
6. As the matters are pending before the High Court
and the parties are litigating the matters, we
consider it appropriate to request the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad to assign the cases mentioned at
paragraph Nos.2 to 4 to one Bench. We also request
that the matters may be decided as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within six months. We direct
the opposite party to make the payment of arrears
of maintenance within two months. The High Court
shall also ensure that arrears of maintenance, if
any due, are paid by the opposite party to the
petitioner, within a period of two months.
7. We also request the ACJM-12, Agra, to decide the
matter mentioned at paragraph 5, as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within one year, subject to
the cooperation of the complainant.
8. With respect to the medical emergency, it is open
to the petitioner to make an appropriate prayer
before the High Court.
9. The special leave petition is, accordingly,
disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.”
4. Consequent to the above order of this Court, the Division Bench
of the High Court presided by the then Chief Justice had passed
the following order in a S. 482 (Cr.P.C) petition of the present
appellant:
4
“This application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is required to be
adjudicated by a single Bench but looking to the
directions issued by the Supreme Court to hear the
matters of the petitioner together, this matter is also
before us.
By the order impugned dated 27th May, 2019,
learned Judge, Family Court/FTC-1, Agra rejected
an application preferred by the petitioner as per
provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for the want of prosecution.
The order aforesaid was passed looking to the
absence of the petitioner on 4th May, 2019, 7th
May, 2019 and 17th May, 2019.
On going through the contents of the application
preferred under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and also to meet the ends of
justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the
order dated 27th May, 2019 and to restore
Application No.878 of 2015, Deepti Sharma Vs.
Amit Choudhary at its original number.
Accordingly, this application under Section 482
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed. The
order dated 27th May, 2019 passed by Judge,
Family Court/FTC-1, Agra is set aside. The
Application No.878 of 2015, Deepti Sharma Vs.
Amit Choudhary stands restored. The application
is now required to be heard on merits by Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra. The
application is required to be adjudicated and
decided within a period of three months from the
date the parties appear before it. The parties to the
proceedings are directed to appear before the
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra on
6th January, 2020.”
5
5. In short, the High Court vide its order dated 20.12.2019 had set
aside the order of the Family Court dated 27.05.2019 and
restored the Section 125 CrPC petition of the appellant to its
original number and directed the Family Court to decide the case
in accordance with law. The High Court directed that the said
petition is required to be decided on merits by the Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra. This is the order which has
been challenged by the appellant before this Court.
6. We see absolutely no reason as to why we should interfere with
the aforesaid impugned order. The said order is in favour of the
appellant and moreover it only directed the Family Court Agra to
adjudicate the matter afresh which was earlier dismissed by the
Family Court, Agra for non-prosecution. The appellant instead
of appearing before the Family Court, Agra has directly
challenged this order of the High Court before this Court, which
we think is not proper.
7. As to the remaining cases of which there is a reference in the
order dated 30.09.2019 of this Court, the contempt petitions
were dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.08.2024 and the First
Appeal has also been decided on 20.12.2019, with directions to
6
the Family Court to decide her application under Section 25 of
the Hindu Marriage Act within 3 months.
8. The appellant, who has appeared in person, has filed a synopsis
running into 128 pages, loaded with details much of which is not
relevant for our purposes. We understand that the appellant is
not a trained lawyer, but it is for the Registry to have asked the
appellant to trim down the synopsis. A synopsis cannot run into
128 pages!
9. Let the Registrar (Judicial) take note of this, particularly the
cases where litigants are allowed to appear in person.
10. As we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated
20.12.2019, the civil appeal stands dismissed.
……………….………………….J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
..……..………………………….J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
New Delhi.
December 17, 2024.