The Court quashed the summoning order and entire proceedings in a case under Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. This was based on a verified compromise signed between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2.
Quashing of the summoning order dated 30.10.2015 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 169 of 2015.
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. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36137 of 2015
Applicant :- Raseed Khan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Haider Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar,S.K.Rathore
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Firoz Haider, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 30.10.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 169 of 2015, (Smt. Afreen Bano Vs. Raseed Khan & Ors) U/s 498A I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, DistrictJalaun, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M. Jalaun at Orai.
Learned counsel for the parties have stated that that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have entered into compromise which has been signed by both the parties. In view of it, the Court had directed the trial court for verification of the compromise and also to remit the same to this Court within fifteen days vide order dated 21.10.2019.
In pursuance of this Court's order dated 20.11.2019, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun has verified the aforesaid compromise and reported that the parties have settled their dispute by arriving at a compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in view of the fact that parties have settled their dispute by entering into a compromise, the proceedings of present case may be quashed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that his client has no objection, if the proceedings impugned in the present application are quashed in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averment made in the complaint which transpires that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute amicably.
In view of law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian
Singh vs State Of Punjab and another i n Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24 September, 2012, the aforesaid proceeding is hereby quashed. Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., accordingly stands allowed. A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019
MN/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed in view of a post-filing compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab and anotherFollowed¶12
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab and another in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.8989 of 2010 decided on 24 September, 2012
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raseed Khan and 4 Others
State of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
