Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2018A482/29946/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband, who was the accused, had died. The wife had settled the matrimonial dispute and decided not to pursue the criminal case.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No. 510 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act are quashed.

Pradeep Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29946 of 2014

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ashar Hussain

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Head Mr. S.N. Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 .

¶6

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant challenging the entire proceedings of Case No. 510 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 236 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Rakabganj, Distirct Agra as well as the summoning order dated 28.5.2014, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Agra.

¶7

When the present application came up for admission on 5.8.2014, the following interim order was passed by this court:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

It has been specifically contended that even if the prosecution case is set up in the first information report is believe to be true that the wife turn out of the house on 31.08.2013. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is highly improbable that on 09.05.2013 the husbnand and mother-in-law had visited house of the opposite party no. 2 and was caused injuries, prima facie, a case for grant of an interim relief is made out.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1.

¶11

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week.

¶12

Four weeks time is granted to opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three weeks thereafter.

¶13

List thereafter.

¶14

Until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of Case No. 510 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 236 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana Rakabganj, District-Agra pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Agra shall remain stayed."

¶15

A counter affidavit along with the stay vacation application was filed by the opposite party No.2, wherein the contents of the application was seriously disputed by opposite party No.2. There is no rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2.

¶16

It appears that during the pendency of the present application, the opposite party no.2 filed a suit for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of the divorce petition, a compromise was entered between the parties, wherein the husband i.e. the applicant no. 1 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,80,000/- to the opposite party no.2. Unfortunately, at this stage of the proceeding, Pradeep Kumar Singh, who is the husband of the opposite party no.2 died, as a result thereof, the said amount which was to be received by opposite party no.2, was surrendered by her in favourof her father-in-law.

¶17

Since the husband has already died, the opposite party No.2 does not wish to pursue the State case which has come into existence upon lodging of the F.I.R by her.

¶18

On the aforesaid factual premise, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the matter has already been compromised between the parties outside the court, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case. He further submits that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings of the above mentioned case, instead of relegating the parties to the Court below.

¶19

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, does not dispute the factum regarding the death of applicant no.1 who is the husband of the opposite party no.2. He also does not dispute the factum of compromise entered between the parties outside the court, whereby the opposite party no.2 has decided to terminate the proceedings of the State Case pending before the court below. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court, no cause of action survives to pursue the above mentioned complaint case.

¶20

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶21

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶22

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶23

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶24

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶25

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶26

wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.

¶28

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 510 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 236 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Rakabganj, Distirct Agra, are hereby quashed.

¶29

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Order Date :- 25.7.2018

¶31

Arshad

Pradeep Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishak Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and another

Bantu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faraien and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another