Allowed

Iliyas Khan and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2021A482/5365/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving matrimonial offences, including 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The proceedings were quashed after the opposing parties filed affidavits confirming an amicable settlement, payment of money, and return of ornaments.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings in Criminal Case No. 313 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 0761 of 2019 are quashed.

Iliyas Khan and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5365 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Iliyas Khan And 4 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 today in Court, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri Satish Kumar Mishra, 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 dated 24.11.2019 and summoning order dated 29.1.2020 as well as further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 313 of 2020 (State Vs. Mohd Junaid and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0761 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant No. 5 was married to opposite party No. 2 on 27.4.2019, however, on account of matrimonial discord, instant criminal proceedings has been initiated by opposite party no.2 against the applicants. Subsequently, with the intervention of the respected members of both the families, they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and applicant No. 5 and opposite party No. 2 have decided to live separately. Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in terms of the compromise made between the parties, the applicant No. 5 has paid a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to the opposite party No. 2 through Demand Draft No. 003444 dated 31.8.2021 and the applicants has also returned the ornaments belonging to the opposite party No 2.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the compromise made between the parties, entire criminal proceedings, initiated against the applicants, be quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has also appeared and has filed an affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and in paragraphs- 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the parties have entered into a compromise and they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences. It has further acknowledged that a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs has already been received by opposite party No. 2 through Demand Draft No. 003444 dated 31.8.2021 and all the ornaments have also been returned back to the opposite party No. 2 and now no grievance is left against the applicants and the said compromise has been made between the parties without any undue influence and coercion.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that in order to maintain cordial and harmonious relations between them, entire criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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. 313 of 2020 (State Vs. Mohd Junaid and others) arising out of Case

¶21

Crime No. 0761 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur, are hereby quashed.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 2.11.2021 KU

Iliyas Khan and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iliyas Khan and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Hafiz Rahis Alias Rahis Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Seema Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramadhar Vs State of U.P.

Rajit Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naipal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another