Partly allowed

Mahendra Prasad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2018CRLR/324/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court quashed the conviction and sentencing under Section 498-A IPC and allowed the appeal. The bench held that a compromise between the husband and wife rendered further proceedings useful for none, leading to the revisionist's acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentencing quashed; revisionist acquitted; Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1989 quashed.

Mahendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 324 of 1991

¶3

Revisionist :- Mahendra Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Subodh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

1-List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist is not present. Learned A.G.A. is present.

¶6

2-Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

3-This criminal revision has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20.2.1991 passed by the 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1989 and awarding the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo nine months further rigorous imprisonment.

¶8

4-The brief facts of the case are that revisionist-Mahendra Prasad, husband of Smt. Shobha Sharma, had been convicted under Section 498-A I.P.C. vide order dated 11.12.1989 passed by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Criminal Case No.1627 of 1989. Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the revisionist being Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1989 and vide order dated 20.2.1991 passed by the 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, the appeal was dismissed and sentence was reduced from three years to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo nine months further rigorous imprisonment. Subsequently, compromise had taken place between the wife and husband and a report was called for from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. The C.J.M., Bareilly vide report dated 24.1.2018 stated that Smt. Shobha Sharma has been continuously living with her husband from 1996 and out of their wedlock one son was born.

¶9

5-An affidavit has been filed by Smt. Shobha Sharma-opposite party no.2, wife of Mahendra Prasad, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly stating that she has been continuously living with with her husband from 22.4.1996 with happy married life and there is no complaint against her husband and family members and does not wish to press any criminal proceedings. A copy of which has been filed along with the

¶10

revision. On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the criminal proceedings giving rise to the present application may be quashed.

¶11

6-This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

7-In the aforesaid cases, 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.

¶18

8-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 case.

¶19

9-Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentencing the revisionist under Section 498-A I.P.C. in Case No. 1627 of 1989 and proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1989 are hereby quashed. The revisionist is acquitted under Section 498A I.P.C. on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶20

10-The revision is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

11-Copy of this order be transmitted to court concerned through District Judge, Bareilly for compliance.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.7.2018

¶23

Mahendra Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Prasad v. State of U.P.

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

Atikurahman Vs State of U.P.

Veer Vrat @ Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Narpat and Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rekha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Adhare and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another