Single judge quashed summons, NB warrant, and charge sheet under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act following a unanimous settlement at the Mediation Centre, relying on B.S. Joshi.
Quashed summoning order, non-bailable warrant order, charge sheet, and every proceeding arising out of Case No. 6013 of 2018 / Old Case No. 690 of 2016.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11813 of 2019
Applicant :- Mohd Naseem And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar,Mohd. Aslam Bed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nitin Srivastava
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
The parties are represented through their respective counsel.
By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought for quashment of the impugned summoning order dated 3.6.2017 as well as Non Bailable warrant order dated 25.2.2019 and charge sheet bearing no. 1 of 2017 dated 1.5.2017 and every proceedings arising out of New Case No. 6013 of 2018 old case 690 of 2016 in case crime no. 3191 of 2016 under sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar district Shahjahanpur pending before the C.J.M. Shahjahanpur.
Sri Mohd. Aslam Beg, learned counsel for the applicant states that a unanimous settlement has been arrived at the Mediation Centre Lucknow of Lucknow Bench of this Court and settlement/agreement is at page 75-76 and has been marked as Annexure-10 to the application. The dispute has been resolved and the parties have agreed upon certain terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the agreement have been elaborated in paragraph 5 of the agreement dated 23.5.2018.
The learned A.G.A. has no objection.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submissions made by the learned counsel for O.P.No. 2, it appears that the parties have settled their dispute and O.P. No. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicants, in such a circumstances there is no likelihood of conviction of the applicants, in case they are tried by the trial court, the trial of the applicants shall be a futile exercise, it shall not serve any purpose and there would be no chance of conviction. In such circumstances the Supreme Court's decision in the case of B.S. Joshi and another Versus State of Hariyana and another (2003) (4) S.C.C. 675.
The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, is applicable in this case also. Therefore, to
meet the ends of justice impugned summoning order dated 3.6.2017 as well as Non Bailable warrant order dated 25.2.2019 and charge sheet bearing no. 1 of 2017 dated 1.5.2017 and every proceedings arising out of New Case No. 6013 of 2018 old case 690 of 2016 in case crime no. 3191 of 2016 under sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar district Shahjahanpur pending before the C.J.M. Shahjahanpur, are hereby quashed. Accordingly this application is allowed. Order Date :- 1.5.2019 N.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed following a unanimous settlement.
Whether a futile exercise of trial occurs when a settlement is arrived at and prosecution is objected.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶9
B.S. Joshi and another Versus State of Hariyana and another (2003) (4) S.C.C. 675 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohd Naseem And 4 Others
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
