Allowed

Jarifudin and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2023A482/14703/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings for dowry harassment and cruelty. Relying on a valid settlement agreement and the parties' subsequent reunion, the court held that continuing the case would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Case No. 2890 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are hereby quashed.

Jarifudin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:125305

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14703 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jarifudin and others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Applicant :- Uday Shankar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Rana

¶5

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

1. Heard Mr. Uday Shankar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amit Rana, learned Counsel for the complainantopposite party no. 2 and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

2. This application has been filed, seeking to quash proceedings of Case No. 2890 of 2020 (arising out of Case Crime No. 100 of 2018) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('Penal Code' for short) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961' for short) Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fast Track Court (Crime against Women), Meerut.

¶8

3. Applicant no. 1, Jarifudin and the second opposite party, Smt. Afsana are husband and wife. At some point of time, they fell apart and the complainant-opposite party lodged a first information report against her husband and in-laws, complaining of cruelty, molestation and demand for dowry. This led to registration of a first information report against the applicants and six other coaccused - all in-laws of the complainant-opposite party, giving rise to Crime No. 100 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Act of 1961, Police Station

¶9

Mahila Thana, District Meerut.

¶10

4. The Police, after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against three applicants here, seeking to try and punish them for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Act of 1961. It is averred that the Court, before which the case came up for trial, referred the parties to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre at Meerut. Before the Mediation Centre, the parties have entered into a settlement agreement on 04.01.2019. A copy of the settlement agreement and a copy of the report to Court, both dated 04.01.2019, signed by parties, their learned counsel and the learned Mediator is on record as part of Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. A perusal of settlement agreement shows that the parties have settled their differences upon terms of reunion, where, it is indicated that they have compromised to live together.

¶11

5. It must be remarked here that the settlement agreement is on printed proforma and does not set out very elaborately the terms of settlement, the way it should. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority or the other officer in-charge of the District Court annexed Mediation Centre at Meerut shall take care that settlements should not be recorded in a printed proforma with blanks filled up.

¶12

6. Nevertheless, in view of the averments in Paragraphs Nos. 9 and 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is evident that the parties have acted upon the settlement agreement and are living together as man and wife happily. A short counter affidavit too has been filed on behalf of the complainant-opposite party, where, in Paragraphs Nos. 5 and 6, it is averred that the parties have settled the matter before the Mediation Centre and are

¶13

living together happily.

¶14

7. In this view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by permitting the impugned proceedings to continue.

¶15

8. The learned A.G.A. has no objection if the impugned proceedings are quashed, bearing in mind the fact that the dispute is essentially matrimonial in nature and has no impact on the society at large.

¶16

9. In the circumstances, this Court is of opinion that permitting the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of Court and a harassment of parties, and wastage of public time and money. It is, therefore, necessary, in this Court's opinion, to quash the proceedings impugned in order to secure the ends of justice.

¶17

10. In the result, this application succeeds, and accordingly, stands allowed . The proceedings in Case No. 2890 of 2020 (arising out of Case Crime No. 100 of 2018) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fast Track Court (Crime against Women), Meerut are hereby quashed .

¶18

11. An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut that all proceedings arising out Case Crime No. 100 of 2018 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 Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fast Track Court (Crime against Women), Meerut.

¶19

12. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fast Track Court (Crime against Women),

¶20

Meerut through the learned District and Sessions Judge, Meerut and the Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut through the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut by the Registrar (Compliance). A copy of this order be also forwarded to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority/Incharge concerned of the District Court annexed Mediation Centre at Meerut through the learned District and Sessions Judge, Meerut by the Registrar (Compliance).

¶21

Order Date :- 25.4.2023 I. Batabyal/Deepak

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jarifudin and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarifudin and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Lal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishtiyak Ahmed Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satnam Singh @ Aakash Vs State of U.P.and Another

Prabhat Shankar Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Radha Vs State of U.P. and Another