Allowed

Smt. Rajesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2021A482/20227/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the court quashed criminal proceedings involving 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act charges. Following a compromise and return of streedhan, the court held prolonging proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 26950 of 2021 under Sections 498-A IPC, 504 IPC, 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.

Smt. Rajesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20227 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Rajesh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed an affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State/ opposite party no.1, Shri M.D. Shah, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 04.12.2020, cognizance order dated 04.08.2021 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 26950 of 2021 (State Vs. Rohit and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 59 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant nos. 1 and 2, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 354(Ka) IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant nos. 3 and 4, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/F.T.C. (Crimes Against Women), Saharanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant no.2 Rohit and on account of matrimonial discord, instant criminal proceedings has been initiated against the applicants, however subsequently, with the intervention of the respected members of both the families, applicants and the opposite party no.2 have compromised the matter and they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and decided to live separately.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that a compromise deed dated 04.09.2021 has also been drawn between the parties, in which, it is stated that all the streedhan has been returned back to opposite party no.2 by the applicants and in lieu of all claims and dues, future maintenance amount has already been paid to her and now, nothing remains to be paid, as such, entire proceedings, initiated against the applicants, be quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has filed an affidavit, in which, it has been stated that parties have entered into a compromise and a compromise deed dated 04.09.2021 has been filed, copy of which has been

¶11

annexed as Annexure SCA-1 to this affidavit. In para 5 and 6 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that opposite party no.2 has received all her streedhan and future maintenance amount from her husband and now, nothing remains to be paid and they do not have any grievance against each other and she 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 26950 of 2021 (State Vs. Rohit and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 59 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant nos. 1 and 2, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 354(Ka) IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant nos. 3 and 4, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/F.T.C. (Crimes Against Women), Saharanpur, are hereby quashed.

¶21

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.11.2021 Nadim

Smt. Rajesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajesh and 3 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

Yogendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arman Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Prince and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Swami Sharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Shivharey Vs State of U.P. and Another