Allowed

Manu Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC7 May 2018CRLP/12403/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition and quashed an FIR involving matrimonial discord and alleged dowry harassment. The decision was based on a successful mediation settlement reached between the parties, confirming reconciliation and compliance with legal terms.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR dated 13.02.2017 giving rise to Case Crime No. 1 of 2017 is quashed.

Manu Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12403 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Manu Kumar Gupta And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Suraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Bimla Prasad

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.

¶5

The first petitioner Manu Kumar Gupta is the husband and third respondent Anamika Gupta is his wife between whom there was a matrimonial discord which led the FIR giving rise to Case Crime No. 1 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahilla Thana, District Jaunpur.

¶6

This petition came up for admission on 07.07.2017 when this Court directed all parties to attempt an amicable settlement of their dispute with the assistance of the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The parties were referred to the Mediation Centre by an order of that date.

¶7

It appears that before the Mediation Centre parties made attempts to reconcile their differences across as many as six sessions held on 23.08.2017, 13.09.2017, 20.09.2017, 11.10.2017, 25.10.2017, 15.11.2017. The efforts bore fruit and the parties reached an agreement. The Mediation Centre has forwarded its report dated 06.12.2017 along with the settlement-agreement of that date.

¶8

A perusal of the settlement-agreement shows that the parties have reconciled all their differences; have decided to put an end to all pending litigation between them in different courts and before various authorities. The terms of settlement have been set forth in paragraph-6, specifically, paragraph 6 (a) to (h) to the settlement-agreement dated 06.12.2017.

¶9

Looking to the settlement-agreement and the terms of which we find to be not against the law and public policy, we proceed to allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned FIR dated 13.02.2017 giving rise to Case Crime No. 1 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahilla Thana, District Jaunpur.

¶10

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned FIR dated 13.02.2017 giving rise to Case Crime No. 1 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahilla Thana, District Jaunpur is hereby quashed.

¶11

The terms of the settlement-agreement dated 06.12.2017 carried in paragraph no. 6 (a) to (h) are made Rule of Court to be faithfully complied with all courts subordinate. Likewise, both parties to the agreement and persons claiming through them will be bound by the terms of the settlement-agreement dated 06.12.2017.

¶12

The aforesaid order is being passed by us in exercise of our powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.5.2018 Ujjawal

Manu Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamla Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zahid Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Reena Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others