Allowed

Ramit Jain and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023A482/10184/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, this High Court quashed criminal proceedings instituted against applicants based on Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court found that a verified compromise had been settled between the parties regarding matrimonial discord. It held that continuing the litigation would constitute an abuse of process and unwarranted harassment,

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Case No. 59541 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed on account of a verified compromise.

Ramit Jain and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10184 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ramit Jain And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

In compliance with the order dated 12.04.2023, applicant no. 1, Ramit Jain and opposite party no. 2, Divya Vasudeva are both present before the Court. They have affirmed the factum of compromise. They have verified the compromise before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar. A report dated 18.04.2023 has been received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar saying that the compromise has been verified. Along with the report a copy of the Magistrate's order of 18.04.2023 has been annexed verifying the compromise.

¶6

The terms of the compromise dated 09.01.2023 have been annexed which show that parties have settled their differences. In paragraph no. 7 of the compromise, it is covenanted:

¶7

"It is also agreed between the parties that they will file an application before the concerned court of CJM, Gautam Budh Nagar, in FIR No. 450/2022 stating that they have settled the disputes among themselves in terms of this MOU/agreement and shall be approaching the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad for the quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out FIR No. 450 of 2022, against all the accused. That both the parties will appear at all times and required and cooperate in the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble CJM as mentioned above."

¶8

2. This application has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings of Case No. 59541 of 2022, State vs. Ramit Jain and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 450 of 2022), under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sector 39, Gautam Budh Nagar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶9

3. Heard Mr. Abhinav Gaur, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Mr. D.K. Srivastava, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

¶10

4. The parties have come up with a prayer to quash the impugned proceedings

¶11

on the basis of a compromise above referred, which has now been verified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, as recorded hereinabove . The dispute between parties that has led to the impugned proceedings is essentially matrimonial in nature.

¶12

5. The learned AGA submits that the dispute being essentially a matrimonial, the State, though formally the forerunner of the prosecution, may not have much to say because the offence is not one that has wide ramifications in the society.

¶13

6. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel, who appears on behalf of the second opposite party has no objection, if this Court were to quash the proceedings of the case.

¶14

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, this Court finds that given the circumstances of parties, it is evident that they do not want to litigate on any score with regard to issues that have arisen between them on account of a matrimonial discord. In the circumstances, permitting these proceedings to continue, in our opinion, would be an abuse of process of Court because ex facie it would not lead to any fruitful result. Rather, it would be wastage of time, resources and energy, besides avoidable harassment of parties. It is necessary, therefore, that the impugned proceedings be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶15

8. In the result this application succeeds and is allowed . Proceedings against the applicants in Case No. 59541 of 2022, State vs. Ramit Jain and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 450 of 2022), under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sector 39, Gautam Budh Nagar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, are hereby quashed.

¶16

9. An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of P.S. Sector 39, Gautam Budh Nagar, District Gautam Budh Nagar that all proceedings in Case No. 59541 of 2022, State vs. Ramit Jain and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 450 of 2022), under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC read with Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sector 39, Gautam Budh Nagar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh

¶17

Nagar stand quashed under orders of this Court.

¶18

10. This part of the order shall be caused to be carried out in the records of the police station concerned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶19

11. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, through the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar and the S.H.O. of P.S. Sector 39, District Gautam Budh Nagar through the Commissioner of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.4.2023 Deepak

¶21

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramit Jain and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramit Jain and 3 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zia Ur Rehman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Pal Alias Dinesh Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Chandar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Laxmi Narayan and Others

Arun and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another