Allowed

Dharmendra Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2023A482/5399/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings instituted against Dharmendra Sharma under sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court noted a verified compromise between the parties and held that prolonging proceedings served no useful purpose, thereby quashing the case.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Case No.1544 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed.

Dharmendra Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5399 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmendra Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tahir Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the Case No.1544 of 2021 (State Vs. Dharmendra Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.179 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Gautam Budhh Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. Court, Gautam Budhh Nagar.

¶7

On 12.07.2022, the Court has passed following order:

¶8

"Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶9

Heard Mr. Tahir Ali, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Haider Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 21.06.2021 as well as cognizance order dated 31.08.2021 and the entire proceeding of Case No.1544 of 2021 (State Vs. Dharmendra Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.179 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Gautam Budhh Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. Court, Gautam Budhh Nagar in pursuance of compromise/ settlement dated 17.12.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them out of court. In this regard, the affidavit on behalf of

¶12

both the parties has been filed stating therein that they have entered into compromise and they do not want to press the case, copy of said affidavit has been annexed as Annexure no.4 to this application. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the parties may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

¶14

In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file a proper compromise deed. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not?

¶15

The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶16

Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."

¶18

Pursuant to the above order, the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. Court, Gautam Budhh Nagar vide order dated 18.11.2022 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. Court, Gautam Budhh Nagar vide order dated 18.11.2022 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure no 2.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the concerned Magistrate, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed.

¶20

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶21

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶22

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another ; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶23

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

¶24

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others ; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶25

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab ; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶26

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶27

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another ; 2013 (83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶29

Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.1544 of 2021 (State Vs. Dharmendra Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.179 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Gautam Budhh Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge

¶30

(J.D.)/F.T.C. Court, Gautam Budhh Nagar are hereby quashed.

¶31

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Order Date :- 20.3.2023 Anurag

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Sharma and Another 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

Dhanraj Meena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Alias Mahmood and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil Gaba and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Dwivedi @ Saurabh Kumar Dwivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Shiv Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others