Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Homes, Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42326

Court No. - 28

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4501 of 2023

Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Homes, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, Advocate for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

It has been informed that the earlier counsel Sri Arun Kumar Verma has been appointed as State Law Officer for the Government of Uttar Pradesh and therefore he cannot appear in this matter.

¶8

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Pandey learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 15/2018 (State Vs. Dilip) arising out of Charge Sheet dated 08.09.2017 bearing Charge Sheet No. 227 / 2017 filed in Case Crime No. 305/2017 under sections 376, 377, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Sandi, District- Hardoi pending before learned Additional Session Judge / F.T.C. (W), Hardoi. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Session Trial No. 15 / 2018 (State Vs. Dilip) arising out of Charge Sheet dated 08.09.2017 bearing Charge Sheet No. 227/2017 filed in Case Crime No. 305/2017 under sections 376, 377, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Sandi, District- Hardoi pending before learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. (W), Hardoi.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that due to enmity, the victim has lodged a First Information Report against the present applicant though she was major at the time of the incident and she performed marriage with the present applicant and they are

¶11

living together. He has also filed the marriage registration certificate vide application dated 26.05.2023. Submission is that the present applicant and the alleged victim, namely, Lilawati are living together after their marriage and they have also entered into a compromise on 24.04.2023 which is annexed as annexure no. 6 along with the instant application.

¶12

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that since both the parties are major and they are living with each other with their own sweet will, and as such, the criminal proceeding would amount to harassment and the martial life of the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 shall be vanished if the criminal proceeding is allowed to go on further. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on a judgement in Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another reported in (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021 and has placed reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 and the same are extracted hereunder:-

¶13

"9. We find that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the complainant before the Court shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellant. The main allegation was against Vikram Roop Rai but the prosecutrix married him on 4.8.2013 and had given birth to two children from that wedlock. In the absence of any allegation against the appellant, we find that the continuation of proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶14

10. Since there is no evidence against the appellant, the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of FIR would be untenable. The High Court was, thus, not justified in dismissing the petition against the appellant."

¶15

He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered in Sachin Jain v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another, Criminal Appeal No.510 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) NO.3009 of 2022 .

¶16

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the further proceeding will amount to harassment of the present applicant and thus the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has no objection to the contention aforesaid rather he is supporting the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the parties have settled the dispute and have entered into an agreement.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State also has no objection to the

¶19

contention aforesaid.

¶20

Considering the submissions aforesaid, 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.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the instant application is disposed off with the direction to the court below concerned that if any such compromise deed is filed, the court below shall issue notice to all the signatories of the compromise deed requiring their presence before it to verify the contents of the compromise and if the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared within one month and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof. If such verification is successfully done, then the applicants would have liberty to approach this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶22

For the period of one month, further proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case shall remain stayed.

¶23

Office is directed to return back the original compromise deed, if any, to the applicant within one week.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 Anurag

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dilip Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Homes, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Homes, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gur Dayal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hari Krishna Verma @ Badkan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Uma Prakash and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Satish Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secty. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Bhullur Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Kailash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another