Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2022A482/19820/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court quashed summary complaint proceedings regarding dowry harassment and criminal intimidation. The court relied on verified facts from the trial court confirming that a settlement was reached and upheld between the parties, finding no utility in prolonging the process.

What did the court decide?

Provisions of Paragraphs 498-A, 323, 406, 504 and 506 IPC and provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, as applicable in Complaint Case No. 9785 of 2014 are quashed.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19820 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Kumar Kushwaha

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Atul Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Madnesh Prasad Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

On 02.03.2022, the following order was passed:

¶7

"Short Counter Affidavit along with Vakalatnama filed by Sri Atul Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Atul Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A.

¶9

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 9785 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 & 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in terms of the compromise dated 17.4.2017.

¶10

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 17.4.2017. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. A copy whereof has been annexed with this application as Annexure-7. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶11

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶12

List this case on 7.9.2017 before the appropriate Bench.

¶13

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 18.8.2017 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court.

¶14

Office is directed to send through FAX a copy of this order as well as the

¶15

photocopy of the compromise annexed as Annexure-7 to the application to the court concerned within three days.

¶16

Till the next date of listing no coercive steps would be taken against the applicant."

¶17

In compliance of the aforesaid order, a letter of C.J.M., Jhansi dated 31.08.2017 has been placed on record. Along with the letter, order dated 18.08.2017 has also been placed on record vide which, the compromise entered into between the parties has been verified in presence of the parties along with their respective counsels.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the compromise entered into between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case may be quashed by this Court.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also affirms that the parties have entered into a compromise and copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order dated 18.08.2017, they have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶20

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶21

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

¶22

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences.

¶27

Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted

¶29

herein above, and also the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶30

Accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case no. 9785 of 2014, under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 & 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in terms of the compromise dated 17.04.2017, are hereby quashed.

¶31

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Order Date :- 28.7.2022 Madhurima

¶33

Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.08.02 15:18:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Niranjan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Iqbal Khan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omi Alias Omprakash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navneet Upreti and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

New Fair Deal Enterprises Vs State of U.P. and Another