Allowed

Swami Sharan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2021A482/21304/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against the applicant for matrimonial offences including 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court observed that the parties had compounded the matter via a settlement agreement and full payment, rendering further proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of charge-sheet no. 18 of 2014 and the cognizance order dated 12.11.2014 in Criminal Case No. 19289 of 2014.

Swami Sharan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21304 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Swami Sharan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R S Dubey

¶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 applicant, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1, Shri R.S. Dubey, 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 no. 18 of 2014, dated 22.02.2014, in Criminal Case No. 19289 of 2014 in case no. 940 of 2013 under sections 498-A, 379, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and also quash the impugned cognizance order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 19289 of 2014 (State Vs. Swami Sharan and others) arising out of case crime no. 940 of 2013, under sections 498-A, 379, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that opposite party no. 2 was married to applicant no. 1 on 28.01.2007 and on account of matrimonial discord, instant criminal proceedings has been initiated against the applicant, however, with the intervention of respected members of both the family, applicant and the opposite party no.2 have compromised the matter and they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and now, they do not have any grievance against each other and both the parties agreed to live separately. A settlement agreement dated 29.07.2019 was drawn between the parties at the Mediation and Conciliation Center, High Court, Delhi. As per the said agreement, an amount of Rs. 36,25,000/- was agreed to be paid by the applicant to opposite party no. 2 in full and final settlement of all her claims and dues.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a sum of

¶10

Rs. 31,25,000/- had already been paid to opposite party no. 2 by the applicant no. 1 and by way of demand draft no. 317393 dated 02.11.2021, Rs. 5 Lacs has been handed over today itself to opposite party no. 2, which has been acknowledged by counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in view of the settlement agreement dated 29.07.2019 made between the parties, entire proceedings, initiated against the applicant, be quashed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has appeared and acknowledged the aforesaid agreement. He has further submitted that as per settlement agreement, entire amount of Rs. 36,25,000/- has already been received by opposite party no.2 and now, they do not have any grievance against each other and she has no objection, if the entire criminal proceedings, initiated against the applicant, be quashed.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. 5. 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.

¶21

19289 of 2014 (State Vs. Swami Sharan and others) arising out of case crime no. 940 of 2013, under sections 498-A, 379, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Budh Nagar, are hereby quashed.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 12.11.2021 Vikram

Swami Sharan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Sharan 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

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

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

Ravi Shivharey Vs State of U.P. and Another