Allowed

Himanshu Agrawal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2021A482/36575/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act following a verified compromise between the parties. Relying on Supreme Court precedents allowing settlement in cognizable cases, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings and allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Case Crime No. 416 of 2014 under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36575 of 2015

¶3

Applicant :- Himanshu Agrawal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Pachauri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raghvendra Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 18.6.20215 as well as cognizance order dated 15.10.2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2014 Under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Raya, District- Mathura, in terms of the compromise.

¶7

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their wellwishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite party no.2 and it has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned.

¶8

Pursuant to the order dated 18.8.2021 it was directed that "learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, 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."

¶9

Pursuant to order of this Court dated 18.8.2021 report of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 9.9.2021 has been placed on record, whereby the compromise entered between the parties has been verified.

¶10

The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

In the aforesaid cases, 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.

¶17

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 complaint case.

¶18

In view of the above, the proceedings of Case Crime No. 416 of 2014 Under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Raya, District- Mathura, are hereby, quashed.

¶19

The application is, accordingly, allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court below immediately.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.9.2021 S.Verma

Himanshu Agrawal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Agrawal 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

Pramod and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brahm Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Purnima Chandra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarveen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another