Allowed

Rajesh Kumar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023A482/21152/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against applicants involving domestic offences (IPC Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and Dowry Prohibition Act). The court found that a compromise was reached, relevant mutual litigation was withdrawn, and continued prosecution would be a futile exercise causing oppression.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 18.03.2023 and proceedings of criminal case no. 6567 of 2023 are quashed.

Rajesh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191983

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21152 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradip Kumar Singh,Niraj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Dhuriya

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet no. 228 of 2022 dated 19.11.2022, cognizance order dated 18.03.2023 and proceedings of criminal case no. 6567 of 2023 (State vs. Rajesh and others) arising out of case crime no. 225 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C.Ist, Muzaffarnagar.

¶8

3-The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the applicants namely Rajesh Kumar, Smt. Basanti, Shamsher, Pawan Kumar, Smt. Sunita and Smt. Reena Devi are husband, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 respectively. On on 4.7.2023, when the matter was heard, it was argued on behalf of applicants that they are willing to settle the dispute with opposite party no. 2 by way of mediation before this Court, therefore, vide order dated 4.7.2023, applicant no. 1-Rajesh Kumar and opposite party no. 2-Smt. Monika were directed to appear before this Court on 2.8.2023. Pursuant to said order, both the parties had appeared before this Court on 2.8.2023 and an opportunity of interaction with each other was also given to them. After having conversation with each other, opposite party no. 2-Smt. Monika

¶9

submitted that in case her husband/applicant no. 1 is ready to withdraw all the proceedings initiated by him in Case No. 28 of 2023 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Monika) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending in the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Karnal, Haryana and Case No. 11 of 2023 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Monika and others), under Section 385, 406, 120-B, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of A.C.J.M./Sub Divisional Magistrate-IInd, District Karnal, Haryana then she has no objection if the Court quashes the criminal proceedings of this case against the applicants. On the said date, applicant no. 1 Rajesh Kumar had also given an undertaking to withdraw the above cases filed by him against the opposite party no. 2 and for the said purpose he was allowed two months' time.

¶10

4-On the matter being taken up, applicant no. 1 has filed a supplementary afÏdavit dated 4.10.2023, which is taken on record. In the said supplementary afÏdavit, it is mentioned that both the above cases have been withdrawn by him vide orders dated 22.9.2023. Copy of said orders has also been brought on record as Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary afÏdavit dated 04.10.2023.

¶11

5-On the strength of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, therefore continuance of criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned chargesheet against the applicants after compromise between them would be a futile exercise and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶12

6-Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party No.2 has no grievance and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the

¶13

applicants.

¶14

7-After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that after compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicants to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned wants to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in personal dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of conviction gets lost.

¶15

8-The Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others AIR 2019 SC 1296 and Ramgopal and another Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 2021Supreme (SC)529 after wholesome treatment has laid down guidelines for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of non-compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. on the basis of compromise, wherein quashing of proceeding of criminal cases which involved non compoundable offences has been approved by the Apex Court if the nature of the offence is private in nature and does not have a serious impact on society.

¶16

9-Considering the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court as mentioned above, I find that the case in hand does not have grave and wider social ramifications and the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties, therefore this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the end of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the

¶17

criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end.

¶18

10-In view of the above, cognizance order dated 18.03.2023 and proceedings of criminal case no. 6567 of 2023 (State vs. Rajesh and others) arising out of case crime no. 225 of 2022 against the applicants are hereby quashed.

¶19

11-The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise, as mentioned above.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.10.2023 Aiman

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AIMAN FAROOQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar and 5 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

Vipin and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Roop Chand and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Faisal @ Mohd. Faisal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishesh Dhigan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others