Allowed

Ram Lakhan @ Raju Panchal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021A482/3118/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash pending criminal proceedings involving Sections 498-A and others for matrimonial discord. Finding the dispute civil and mutually settled via a compromise deed, the court held prosecution served no useful purpose and set aside the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the complaint case under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act were set aside.

Ram Lakhan @ Raju Panchal and 2 Others Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3118 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Lakhan @ Raju Panchal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari,Dharmendra Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram Surat Patel, Advocate has entered appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A. for the State. The said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3758 of 2018 (Smt. Rita Devi Vs. Ram Lakhan @ Raju Panchal and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun at Orai, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai as well as the summoning order dated 26.08.2019.

¶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 had been lodged against the applicant no.1 and his family members but that neither there was any criminal intent on part of any party nor any criminal offence had actually occurred.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-

¶10

(i) the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature;

¶11

(ii) the complaint case was filed by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;

¶12

(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;

¶13

(iv) there is no injury caused to any party and wholly exaggerated allegations had been made in the heat of the moment owing to estranged relationship and bruised egos;

¶14

(v) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.

¶15

It is also stated, that compromise deed dated 07.12.2020 had been filed by the parties before the learned Court below. Certified copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit in support of the present application. It further appears that the learned Court below has verified the aforesaid compromise.

¶16

In fact, it is submitted that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto bitterly estranged couple and their families;

¶17

Sri Ram Surat Patel, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶18

In view of the fact that the dispute appears to be purely of a personal nature being a matrimonial dispute that has been mutually settled between the parties, to their satisfaction, no useful purpose would be served in allowing such a prosecution to proceed any further.

¶19

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 Judgement 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.

¶20

The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.2.2021 Lbm/-

Ram Lakhan @ Raju Panchal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lakhan @ Raju Panchal and 2 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

Smt. Anita Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dilip Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kumud Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandesh Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another