Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023A482/11590/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings involving Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that since the parties had settled the matrimonial dispute via compromise and the offence did not affect society at large, continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose. The proceedings were quashed relying

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Criminal Case No.3796 of 2006 under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.

Shiv Chandar and 4 Others Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11590 of 2023 Applicant :- Shiv Chandar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey,Sunil Kumar Pandey

¶2

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Pandey

¶3

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶4

In compliance with the order dated 5.4.2023, the office has submitted a report that opposite party no.2 has been served through heirs. Service upon opposite party no.2 is held sufficient.

¶5

The case is called on. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. also states that according to instructions received, he does not wish to file counter affidavit or oppose the prayer to quash proceedings because the matter arises out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties.

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

This application has been filed seeking to quash proceedings of Criminal Case No.3796 of 2006, State vs. Rajesh and others (arising out of Case Crime No.C7 of 2006) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi, pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Bhadohi at Gyanpur.

¶9

A compromise application has been filed before the Magistrate/FTC (Crime Against Women) on 11.7.2022, which has been verified by the Court on 20.1.2023 after due identification of the parties by the learned counsel appearing for them. The order of the court is recorded at page 30 of the paper book verifying the compromise.

¶10

Since opposite party has not appeared to oppose the prayer, it is apparent that the parties have settled the matter. A perusal of the paragraph no.4 of the terms of compromise shows that the complainant/opposite party does not wish to pursue the case any further.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has no objection to the proceedings being quashed in terms of the compromise, since the offence is essentially one that does not much affect the society at large.

¶12

Looking to the nature of the injuries, offence charged, the nature of allegations and overall circumstances, this Court finds that offence involved is not one of wide ramification in society or one that makes the State's function, as the forerunner of the prosecution, the primary one. It is a case where, within the parameters of the holding of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the proceedings can be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice.

¶13

Looking to the terms of the compromise, no useful purpose would be served by permitting this prosecution to continue, which would be an abuse of process of Court. Rather, it would only involve avoidable expenditure of resources, time and energy in holding a trial, the result whereof is obvious. It would also result in harassment of parties. In the circumstances, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶14

This application is, accordingly, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No.3796 of 2006, State vs. Rajesh and others (arising out of Case Crime No.C7 of 2006) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi, pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Bhadohi at Gyanpur are hereby quashed.

¶15

An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi that all proceedings arising out Case Crime No.C7 of 2006 stand quashed, under orders of this Court. This part of the order shall be caused to be carried out in the records of the police station concerned by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur.

¶16

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur through the learned Sessions Judge, Bhadohi and the Station House Officer, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi through the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi, by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.4.2023/Anil K. Sharma

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Chandar and 4 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ranjeet and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdeesh Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Musheer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another