Allowed

Amit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2023A482/8607/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge allowed an.Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against applicants in a matrimonial dispute involving Sections 498A and other UPCA IPC sections. The Court noted a verified compromise, lack of objection from the AGA, and concluded that continuing the trial would be an abuse of process, resulting in unnecessary harassment and expenditure.

What did the court decide?

The impugned criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 2635 of 2022 were quashed, and a direction was issued to the police to record the quashing in the General Diary.

Amit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8607 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit, enclosing with it a certified copy of the compromise, has been filed today. It is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

This application has been filed seeking to quash proceedings of Sessions Case No. 2635 of 2022, State vs. Amit Kumar and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2019) under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against applicants nos. 1 and 2, and under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 376, 511 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against applicant no. 3, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur, pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Saharanpur.

¶8

In compliance with the order dated 15.03.2023, the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Saharanpur has submitted a report dated 24.03.2023 along with a xerox copy of the compromise and the order of verification dated 23.03.2023 recorded by the learned Judge, after identification of all parties by learned Counsel representing them.

¶9

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the fact that the parties have settled the matter amicably and verified the compromise.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

This application is, accordingly, allowed . The proceedings in Sessions Case No. 2635 of 2022, State vs. Amit Kumar and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2019) under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against applicants nos. 1 and 2, and under Sections 498A, 323,

¶14

354, 376, 511 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against applicant no. 3, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur, pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Saharanpur are hereby quashed.

¶15

An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur that all proceedings arising out Case Crime No. 60 of 2019 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 Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Saharanpur.

¶16

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Saharanpur through the learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur and the Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur through the Commissioner of Police, Saharanpur by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week .

¶17

Order Date :- 6.4.2023 I. Batabyal

¶18

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

Amit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudheer Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Expo Trans India Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Devi Sharan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others