Allowed

Shakir Husain and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2021A482/11293/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge quashed the charge sheet and cognizance order in a matrimonial criminal case involving Section 498-A and Dowry Prohibition Act charges upon a compromise reached between the husband and wife, applying Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No. 5112 of 2020 arising out of Crime No. 124 of 2019 are set aside and the present application is allowed.

Shakir Husain and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11293 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shakir Husain And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants has supplied certified copy of the verification order that took place before the court below which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet dated 14.12.2019 and cognizance order dated 15.02.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 5112 of 2020 (State Vs. Shakir Husain & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 124 of 2019, under Sections498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Nagfani, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case has been lodged against the applicant no. 1 and his other family members but that no real criminal offence had actually occurred.

¶9

It is thus submitted that the present criminal prosecution has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties, with passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and they are living together as husband and wife.

¶10

He further submits, at present, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charge against the applicants.

¶11

In view of the fact that the husband and wife do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise which took place before the court below, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶12

Thus, in view of the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another ), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶13

The present application is accordingly allowed .

¶14

Order Date :- 12.11.2021 shiv

Shakir Husain and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakir Husain and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Vijai Pratap Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Diwakar @ Bantu Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U P and Another

Anoop and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pravin Chauhan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another