Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2022/891/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to quash a charge sheet and summoning order under Sections 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, holding that since the parties settled their dispute amicably and the compromise was verified, continuation of criminal proceedings was not justified.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet, summoning order dated 6.10.2018, order dated 10.9.2021, and entire proceedings of Case No.166 of 2019 under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.

Amit Kumar Prajapati (Raghav) and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 891 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Prajapati (Raghav) And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhay Pratap Singh,Anchal Gupta,Priyanka Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

This petition has been filed for quashing the charge sheet as well as the summoning order dated 6.10.2018 and the order dated 10.9.2021 and the entire proceedings of Case No.166 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.365 of 2017, under Sections 498A and 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maakhi, District Unnao, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Unnao.

¶6

The parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have reduced the terms of the compromise in writing on 4.9.2021, and the terms of compromise has been placed on record as Annexure-6 to the petition. The said compromise has been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court vide order dated 28.3.2022.

¶7

Considering the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and the compromised has been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not be justified and proper in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi and others versus 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 State of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶9

Petition is accordingly allowed and the charge sheet as well as the summoning order dated 6.10.2018 and the order dated 10.9.2021 and the entire proceedings of Case No.166 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.365 of 2017, under Sections 498A and 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maakhi, District Unnao, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Unnao, are hereby quashed.

¶10

Order Date :- 15.7.2022 Rao/-

¶11

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.07.16 17:36:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

Santhosh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Singh Vs State of U.P.