CNC-80 quashed criminal proceedings initiated under dowry-related and other offenses upon the parties settling disputes amicably and restoring their matrimonial relationship via a settlement agreement.
Quashed entire proceedings of Case No. 5488 of 2017 arising out of Crime No. 213 of 2016 pending in C.J.M. Kaushambi.
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. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12336 of 2021
Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Supplementary affidavit, filed today in Court, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet no. 01 of 2016, dated 14.10.2016, cognizance/ summoning order dated 30.11.2017 and entire proceedings of Case No. 5488 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Dinesh Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 213 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, instant criminal proceedings has been initiated against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that with the intervention of the respected members of both the family, applicants and the opposite party no.2 have compromised the matter and they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them and they have restored their relationship and now, they are living peacefully as husband and wife under one roof.
Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that settlement agreement dated 25.10.2021 has also been made between the parties and copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the Supplementary Affidavit and the same has also been verified by the court below vide order dated 28.10.2021, as such, entire proceedings, initiated against the applicants, be quashed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has acknowledged the said compromise and has also filed an affidavit stating therein that the parties have settled all
their disputes and differences and they have restored their relationship and now, they are living peacefully as husband and wife under one roof and opposite party no.2 does not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicants and also, she has no objection, if the entire criminal proceedings, initiated against the applicants, is quashed.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of :-
Wherein 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.
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.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Case No. 5488 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Dinesh Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 213 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, are hereby quashed.
This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.11.2021 Nadim
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the entire criminal proceedings under Sections 498A IPC, 323 IPC, 379 IPC, 504 IPC, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act may be quashed on account of settlement and compromise between the parties
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherFollowed¶13
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationFollowed¶13
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersFollowed¶13
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶13
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶13
Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and anotherExplained¶19
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Kumar and 4 Others
State of U.P.
Opposite Party No. 2
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
