Allowed

Lakhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

Allahabad HC27 May 2019A482/20853/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising out of dowry and assault offenses. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding compromise in cognizable offenses, the court held that prolonging proceedings served no useful purpose post-settlement.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings in S.T. No. 594 of 2014 and S.T. No. 212 of 2015. No order as to costs.

Lakhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20853 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Lakhan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Other Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 & 3, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel on behalf of applicants, Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No. 594 of 2014 (State Vs. Vikki and others) and S.T. No. 212 of 2015 (State Vs. Lakhan) arising out of Case Crime No. 421 of 2014, under sections 498A, 307, 506 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur pending before the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur on the ground of compromise dated 03.01.2019 which has been taken place between the applicants and the opposite party nos. 2 & 3.

¶8

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, as per averment made in para 4 of the short counter affidavit, filed by Shri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 & 3. A copy of compromise dated 03.01.2019 has also been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 27.5.2019 Arti

Lakhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

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

Smt. Shankuntala Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sunil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu @ Vivek Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajneesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Reema Singh @ Rekha Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another