Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023A482/6874/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of summons and proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court allowed the application and quashed proceedings based on a verified compromise between the matrimonial parties, holding that continued prosecution is futile.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 11.04.2019 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4230 of 2018 are quashed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195420

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6874 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijesh Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 11.04.2019 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4230 of 2018 (Smt. Renu Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others) under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Bareilly on the basis of compromise between the parties concerned.

¶8

Filtering out unnecessary details, the basic facts in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this case as argued by learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicants are husband, father-in-law, brother-inlaw, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of opposite party no. 2, respectively. This is a matrimonial dispute between applicant no. 1 and opposite party no.2. Marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized on 08.12.2016 with opposite party no. 2, but on account of matrimonial dispute between them, opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants seeking a direction to lodge the first information report against them. The said application was treated as complaint and the

¶9

applicants were summoned vide order dated 11.04.2019, which was challenged by the applicants in Criminal Revision No. 265 of 2019 but the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2020. Thereafter, the parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise application dated 08.02.2021 has been moved before the concerned court below. Vide order of this Court dated 03.08.2022, the concerned court below was directed to verify the compromise application filed by the parties concerned, which has been verified by the trial court by order dated 01.11.2022 mentioning that the parties have made compromise in the matter.

¶10

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, aforesaid criminal proceeding against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate and 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 does not want to prosecute the applicants and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶12

After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that after 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

¶13

continuation of a criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned want to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in a matrimonial 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.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 1 SCC (Cri) 848 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 , this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the ends of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties are brought to an end.

¶15

In view of the above, impugned summoning order dated 11.04.2019 and proceedings of aforesaid Complaint Case No. 4230 of 2018 (Smt. Renu Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others) under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Bareilly against the applicants are hereby quashed.

¶16

In the conspectus of the aforesaid, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of compromise as mentioned above.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.10.2023

¶18

Shubham

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar 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

Saiyed Ali Jafar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Rahisha Khatoon and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vaibhav Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. . and Another