Allowed

Gaurav Johari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021A482/3249/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings under 498A and 506 IPC following a verified compromise between the applicant and the accused spouse. The Court found the dispute to be private and settled, rendering further trial unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Case No. 3866 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act pending in ACJM-VII, Agra are quashed.

Gaurav Johari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3249 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav Johari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pratik Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

No one appears on behalf of opposite party-2, even though name of Balram Singh is duly published in the cause list.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet dated 16.08.2018 submitted in Case Crime No. 900 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra, Cognizance Taking Order/summoning order dated 11.12.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Agra in Case No. 3866 of 2018 (State vs. Gaurav Johari and others) under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra as well as the entire proceedings of above mentioned case now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Agra.

¶8

Present application came up for admission on 09.02.2021 and this Court passed following order:

¶9

"Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Balram Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶10

Heard Sri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Balram Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A.

¶11

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Session Trial No. 1800 of 2017, arising out of case crime no. 900 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jagdishpura, District- Agra pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.VII, Agra, Bijnor.

¶12

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The said compromise shall be filed before the court concerned on the date fixed by this Court. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 did not oppose the prayer.

¶13

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶14

List this case on 10.3.2021 before the appropriate Bench.

¶15

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence alongwith parties and compromise paper before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 24.2.2021 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

¶16

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order to the court concerned within a week.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps would be taken against the applicants.

¶18

The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned Court / Authority / Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."

¶19

Pursuant to above order dated 09.02.2021, parties appeared before court below and filed application dated 24.02.2021 duly supported by an affidavit. By means of aforesaid application, applicant-1 Gaurav Johari and opposite party-2, Anjuli Karmakar jointly prayed that proceedings of above mentioned case be terminated in view of application dated 24.02.2021, affidavit filed in support thereof as well as the plaint of suit under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

¶20

Application dated 24.02.2021 has been duly verified by court below. Accordingly, a report dated 24.02.2021 has been sent by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Agra to this Court. Court has also examined the plaint of divorce case bearing application no. 2280 of 2019 wherein parties have agreed to settle all their disputes on the basis of compromise.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that since dispute between parties is purely a private dispute and parties having compromised to settle their dispute no useful purpose would by serve by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned criminal case.

¶22

In view of above, present criminal application succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Entire proceedings of Case No. 3866 of 2018 (State vs. Gaurav Johari and others) under

¶23

Sections 498A, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Agra are hereby quashed.

¶24

Cost made easy.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.7.2021 Ashish Pd.

Gaurav Johari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Johari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Shakir @ Shakir Ali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indira Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Man Singh @ Man Singh Baghel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rijwan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Vidhya Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another