Allowed

Mohd.Naushad and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2022/3632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of criminal proceedings for dowry-related offenses. The High Court, noting a notarized compromise where all terms were fulfilled and a settlement sum was paid, held that continuance of proceedings would be futile and quashed them.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the charge-sheet dated 07.01.2021, the order dated 17.02.2021 summoning applicants, and the entire criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Raebareli.

Mohd.Naushad and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3632 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd.Naushad And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Raziullah,Farhan Alam Osmany,Gayasuddeen

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard and perused the record.

¶7

By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 07.01.2021 filed in FIR No.0330 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323 and 313 IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act lodged at Police Station Salon, District Raebareli, for quashing of the order dated 17.02.2021, by means of which, the applicants have been summoned to face trial and, for quashing of the entire proceedings, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Raebareli.

¶8

Ground, taken for quashing of the impugned proceedings, is the compromise arrived at between the parties and, notarized copy of the compromise has been placed on record as Annexure-5.

¶9

Applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2, who are husband and wife, are present in person. They have been duly recognized and identified by their respective counsels.

¶10

Respondent no. 2, Smt. Saba Parveen states that all the terms & conditions of the compromise have been fulfilled; her husband has given back all her belongings and, she has received the same to her satisfaction.

¶11

Today, on behalf of petitioner no. 1, Mohd. Naushad, husband, Demand Draft No.647843 of Rs. 57,000/-, drawn at State Bank of India, has been handed over to Smt. Saba Parveen. Smt. Saba Parveen submits that all the disputes have now been settled and, there is no dispute between the parties. She further states that she has no objection, if the impugned proceedings, against the applicants, are quashed.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus

¶13

State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it would be appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the same would be an exercise in futility.

¶14

8. Ordered accordingly.

¶15

Allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.7.2022 MVS/-

¶17

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.07.15 14:57:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd.Naushad and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Naushad and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Surendra Vikram Singh @ Punjabi Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ishwar Chandra Agarwal Ishwar Chandra Agarwal @ Babia Agarw Vs the State of U.P Thru C.B.I and Anr.

Amit Kumar Prajapati (Raghav) and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko and Others

Santhosh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Singh Vs State of U.P.