Allowed¶14

Sanjay Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2024/1911/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing; dowry case (Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC; Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Case Crime No. 436/2016, PS Malihabad, Lucknow) quashed following amicable settlement, payment of settlement amount, Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act mutual-consent divorce decree dated 20.07.2018 (Suit No. 188 of 2018), complainant's affidavit to withdraw cases, and her non-appearance despite service of notice on 02.08.2022; charge sheet dated 27.07.2017 and cognizance order dated 22.10.2017 quashed; failure of justice; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; order dated 2.1.2024.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No. 436/2016, including Charge sheet No.01/2017 dated 27.07.2017 and the cognizance order dated 22.10.2017, quashed. ¶14

Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No. 436/2016, including Charge sheet No.01/2017 dated 27.07.2017 and the cognizance order dated 22.10.2017, quashed.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No. 436/2016, including Charge sheet No.01/2017 dated 27.07.2017 and the cognizance order dated 22.10.2017, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute, the mutual-consent divorce decree, and the non-appearance of the complainant.

¶2

Court's answer

Continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants after amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute, payment of the agreed settlement amount, the complainant's affidavit before the family court undertaking withdrawal of her cases, and her consistent non-appearance to prosecute, would result in a failure of justice.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The Section 482 application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings, including the charge sheet dated 27.07.2017 and the cognizance order dated 22.10.2017, are quashed.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings after amicable matrimonial settlement — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 436/2016 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow, including Charge sheet No.01/2017 dated 27.07.2017 and cognizance order dated 22.10.2017 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. The FIR had been lodged by the wife of applicant no. 1 alleging dowry demand and harassment. The parties subsequently filed Suit No. 188 of 2018 under Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, agreeing to withdraw all cases against each other; a settlement amount was paid by applicant no. 1, and the complainant filed an affidavit admitting she would withdraw her cases. The suit was decreed on 20.07.2018, but opposite party no. 2 neither withdrew the criminal case nor appeared to prosecute it, despite personal service of notice reported on 02.08.2022. Holding that continuance of proceedings after the amicable settlement and payment of the agreed settlement amount would result in a failure of justice, the Court quashed the charge sheet and cognizance order.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:184

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1911 of 2022 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Gupta,Bhavana Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sushil Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajeev Kumar Verma, the learned A.G.A-I appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of case as well as Charge sheet No.01/2017, dated 27.07.2017 and cognizance order dated 22.10.2017 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case Crime No. 436/2016 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow which is pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

¶8

The opposite party no. 2 was the wife of applicant no. 1 and she had filed an F.I.R No. 436 of 2016 under Section 468-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alleging demand of dowry made by the applicant and her harassment by them.

¶9

Subsequently, parties have filed a suit no. 188 of 2018 in the court of Principal Judge, Family court, Lucknow under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act and amongst other things, they had agreed that the parties will withdraw all the cases instituted by

¶10

them and a settlement amount was paid by the applicant no. 1 to the applicant no. 2. The complainant had filed the affidavit in the aforesaid suit in which she had admitted that the cases instituted by her will be withdrawn. However, after the suit filed under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act was decreed on 20.07.2018, the opposite party no. 2 did not cooperated with the applicants for closure of the proceedings.

¶11

Although, the office has reported that the notice issued to the opposite party no. 2 has been served personally as reported on 02.08.2022, no body has put in appearance before this court.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties which has been settled amicably and in the suit filed under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act, the opposite party no. 2 and the applicant no. 1 had stated that they will withdraw all the cases filed by them against each other and the complainant had filed her affidavit to this fact before the family court; that acting on the aforesaid pleadings and affidavit of the complainant and the applicant no. 1, the family court has decreed the suit filed under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act; that thereafter the opposite party no. 2 has not withdrawn the proceedings of the criminal case instituted by her and at the same time she is not appearing to prosecute the applicants also and she has not appeared even before this court, this court is of the considered view that continuous proceedings against the applicant after amicable settlement of the matrimonial disputed between the parties and after payment of agreed settlement amount to her, would result in a failure of justice

¶13

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the entire proceedings including the charge sheet dated 27.07.2017 and

¶14

cognizance order dated 22.10.2017 is hereby quashed.

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 2.1.2024 Preeti.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nepali @ Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anand Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Jameel Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Bharat Singh Bisht Vs Addl.Judge Family Court Lucknow and Another

Juvenile Delinquents 'R.P' Thru. His Father Chhotelal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sultan (Minor Thru. His Father) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another