Allowed

Om Jee Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023A482/9435/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings under IPC sections 353, 504, 506 and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Applying precedents like Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held that with a verified compromise and lack of societal impact, continuing the trial would cause harassment and harassment of parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1058 of 2021 under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, are here

Om Jee Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9435 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Om Jee Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Intekhab Alam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Indu Shekhar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

A supplementary affidavit has been filed in Court today. It is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Indu Shekhar Tripathi, 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 Criminal Case No. 1058 of 2021, State vs. Om Jee Mishra (arising out of Case Crime No. 72 of 2021) under Sections 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kuthond, District Jalaun, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun.

¶8

In compliance with the order dated 22.03.2023, the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun has submitted a report dated 28.03.2023 along with a xerox copy of the compromise and the order of verification dated 28.03.2023 recorded by the learned Magistrate, after identification of all parties by learned Counsel representing them.

¶9

Mr. Indu Shekhar Tripathi, 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 Criminal Case No. 1058 of 2021, State vs. Om Jee Mishra (arising out of Case Crime No. 72 of 2021) under Sections 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kuthond, District Jalaun, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun are hereby quashed.

¶14

An entry shall be caused to be made in the G.D. of Police Station Kuthond, District Jalaun that all proceedings arising out Case

¶15

Crime No. 72 of 2021 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 Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun.

¶16

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun through the learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun and the Station House Office, Police Station Kuthond, District Jalaun through the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, by the Registrar (Compliance) within a week .

¶17

Order Date :- 5.4.2023 I. Batabyal

¶18

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

Om Jee Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Jee Mishra 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

Poonam Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Partner Siroya Developers Vs State of U.P. and Another

Het Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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