Allowed

Vinod Sahu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2021A482/4910/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act in a matrimonial dispute. A compromise deed dated 24.02.2020 was filed by the parties. The court held that the dispute was personal and settled, and allowing prosecution served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1264 of 2019 are set aside and the application is allowed.

Vinod Sahu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4910 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Sahu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Krishna Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Krishna Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Kusum Lata, 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.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1264 of 2019 (Kavita Sahu Vs. Vinod Sahu), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-1st, Jaunpur.

¶7

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.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-

¶9

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

¶10

(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;

¶11

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

¶12

(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;

¶13

(v) therefore, in such changed circumstances, the opposite party

¶14

no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the present applicants.

¶15

It is also stated, that compromise deed dated 24.02.2020 had been filed by the parties before the learned Court below. Certified copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit in support of the present application.

¶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

Ms. Kusum Lata, 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 :- 16.3.2021 Lbm/-

Vinod Sahu and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Sahu 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

Smt. Anarkali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Avanish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajab Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ghanshyam Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Singh @ Karuwa Vs State of U.P. and Another