Allowed

Alok Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt.of Home and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2024/1468/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute. The court quashed the proceedings after noting that the parties had settled their dispute via the Mediation & Conciliation Centre and obtained a mutual decree of divorce.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Case No. 74429 of 2021 including cognizance, summoning order and chargesheet are hereby quashed.

Alok Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1168

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1468 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Alok Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt.Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Utkarsh Kumar,Ajeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Krishna Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as Sri Vijay Krishna Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶7

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 74429 of 2021 (State Vs. Alok Gautam and others), in Case Crime/FIR No. 0136 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow including the cognizance and summoning order dated 17.09.2021 passed by learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Lucknow as well as the chargesheet.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 5874 of 2023 which was dismissed with liberty to file afresh petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that vide order of this Court dated 01.04.2022, the matter was referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court at Lucknow.

¶10

Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the issue in question, relating to the matrimonial dispute, has been settled by Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court at Lucknow vide settlement/agreement dated 10.01.2023, the copy thereof has been shown to the Court, the same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the parties have informed that in terms of the settlement/agreement, the parties have withdrawn their respective cases and the parties have been given the decree of divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the family court concerned.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that

¶12

the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case.

¶13

The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed that even if the offence(s) in question is/are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶14

Not only the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, the entire proceedings of Case No. 74429 of 2021 (State Vs. Alok Gautam and others), in Case Crime/FIR No. 0136 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow including the cognizance and summoning order dated 17.09.2021 passed by learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Lucknow as well as the chargesheet, are hereby quashed.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 4.1.2024 kkv/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alok Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt.of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt.of Home 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Israr Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Harkesh Kumar Patel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ibrahim and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Pooja Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Laddan Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt of Up Civil Sectt Lko and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another