Allowed

Arman Ali and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2021A482/5400/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that entire criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed. The applicant family and the wife had compromised the matter, restored their relationship, and signed a settlement agreement, rendering the continuation of proceedings serves no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 311 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 191 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5400 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Arman Ali And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Chandra Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1, Shri Umesh Chandra Tiwari, 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 no. 197 of 2017 and entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 311 of 2017 (State Vs. Arman Ali), arising out of Case Crime No. 191 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Swar, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Vth, Rampur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, instant criminal proceedings has been initiated against the applicants, however, with the intervention of the respected members of both the family, applicants and the opposite party no.2 have compromised the matter and they have amicably settled all their disputes and differences in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them and they have restored their relationship and now, they are living as husband and wife under one roof and they have no grievance against each other.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in this respect, a settlement agreement dated 10.12.2019 has also been drawn between the parties, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 and 4 to this application.

¶10

In view of said settlement agreement, this Court vide order dated 13.09.2021 had referred the matter to the court below with the direction that the parties will appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order and also file an application for verification of the

¶11

original compromise documents.

¶12

Pursuant to the said order dated 13.09.2021, the parties appeared before the court below and filed the compromise deed dated 10.12.2019, which has been duly verified by the court below vide order dated 22.09.2021, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit, filed today in Court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that in view of the compromise deed dated 10.12.2019, entire proceedings, initiated against the applicants, be quashed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also appeared and has acknowledged that the parties have compromised the matter and they have restored their relationship and now, they are living peacefully as husband and wife under one roof and they have no grievance against each other and opposite party no.2 does not want to further pursue the criminal proceedings against the applicants and also, she has no objection, if the entire criminal proceedings, initiated against the applicants, is quashed.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 311 of 2017 (State Vs. Arman Ali), arising out of Case Crime No. 191 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Swar, District Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Vth, Rampur, are hereby quashed.

¶24

This application under Section 482 CrPC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 11.11.2021 Nadim

Arman Ali and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arman Ali 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

Munendra Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Kripa Shanker Rai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sangam Rajbhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Prince and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bal Govind @ Govind Vs State of U.P. and Another