In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the complaint and summoning order regarding dowry harassment after the parties entered into a settlement through the Court's Mediation Centre.
Proceedings under Cr.P.C. No. 1295 of 2016 and summoning order dated 03.04.2017 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 91 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6964 of 2019
Applicant :- Ram Prakash And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohan Gupta
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the private respondent and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1295 of 2016 (Tarawati Vs. Ram Prakash and others) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First class), Bisauli, District Badaun, under Sections 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ughaiti, District Badaun as well as the summoning order dated 03.04.2017. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application.
The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 26.02.2019 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.
As per report of Mediation Centre dated 15.07.2019 the parties have entered into settlement dated 15.07.2019 and have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.
From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 15.07.2019 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising out in the present matter. The reference of the present case is in para no. 6 (f) of the final settlement between the parties so drawn before the Mediation Centre where they have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them. The matter has been settled and the parties being husband and wife have reunited and have decided to live together.
The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.
From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.
The present application is allowed.
The proceedings as well as summoning order dated 03.04.2017 in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks from today.
Order Date :- 11.8.2022 AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.08.11 17:28:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether High Court can quash proceedings under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act upon settlement between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and anotherApplied¶10
B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationApplied¶10
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and othersApplied¶10
Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabApplied¶10
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And anotherApplied¶10
Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278
Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and anotherApplied¶10
Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ram Prakash And 5 Others
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
