Allowed

Gaurav Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2018A482/37996/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against applicants for dowry-related offenses. The court noted an amicable settlement and lack of grievance, deciding no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 26.10.2018 quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the applicants in Case No.2046 of 2011.

Gaurav Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37996 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

Shri Rajendra Singh, Advocate has filed memo of appearance and supplementary affidavit which are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated pursuant to the charge sheet dated 3.9.2011 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicants in Case No.2046 of 2011 arising out of case crime no.82 of 2011, under Sections 498-A,323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Dashahwmegh, District Varanasi pending in the court of VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Nanad of the of the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has entered into amicable settlement with the applicants as she does not want to prosecute them further. In support of his contention learned counsel has filed compromise deed dated 29.9.2018 as entered into between the parties which has been annexed as Annexure-8 of the application and submits that the prosecution is merely a lame prosecution sheer waste of time and energy.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has contended that both the parties have no grievance whatsoever against each other as the dispute between the opposite party no.2 and the applicant no.1 has been resolved on the intervention of the respected neighbour and family members and they are living together. Hence this application may be decided in terms of the settlement between them.

¶10

The learned A. G. A. has no objection with regard to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶12

Since the opposite party no.2 has entered into amicable settlement with the applicants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has stated that she has no objection in case the criminal proceeding against the applicant is quashed, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others , (2003) 4 SCC 675, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal prosecution alive, as chances of ultimate conviction is bleak.

¶13

In the light of above conspectus taking into account the special facts of the case to give quietus to the dispute entire proceeding of the aforesaid case against the applicants is hereby quashed.

¶14

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.10.2018 M. Tariq

Gaurav Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Yadav and 3 Others 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

Munna Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Dulari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs State of Up and 4 Others

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