Allowed

Umesh Gaud @ Unesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024/1852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 363 and 366 IPC arising from allegations of enticement, noting that the victim had formally married the applicant and agreed to resolve the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings of Sessions Trial No.261 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.306 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366 IPC.

Umesh Gaud @ Unesh Kumar and Another Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23483

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1852 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Umesh Gaud @ Unesh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar,Sanjeev Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Charu Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ram Subhal, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

¶8

2. The short counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

¶9

3. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.261 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.306 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Mahrajganj, District Ayodhya, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Faizabad.

¶10

4. The opposite party no.2 had lodged an F.I.R No. 306/2022 stating that the applicant no.1 had enticed away the informant's daughter.

¶11

5. The informant's daughter had joined the accused- applicant no.1 in seeking the application for quashing of the proceedings stating that she has married the applicant no.1 on 11.07.2023

¶12

and is living with him a his wife and there remains no dispute between the parties.

¶13

6. It has been stated in the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that his daughter has married the accused on 11.07.2023 and that he has resolved the disputes with the accused and he does not want any proceedings to continue against the applicants, as the applicant no.1 is his son in law now.

¶14

7. In view of above, the present application is allowed and proceedings of Sessions Trial No.261 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.306 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Mahrajganj, District Ayodhya, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Faizabad are hereby quashed.

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 18.3.2024 Ram.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Umesh Gaud @ Unesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Gaud @ Unesh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Adalat Prasad and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Master X Thru. His Father in Case Crime No. 374/2023 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit Sharma @ Amit Kumar Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Master S Thru. His Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Juvenile X in Case Cr. No. 758/2023 Thru. Her Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Women and Child Development and 4 Others

Vimal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homelko. and Another