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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed: summoning order dated 02.07.2018 along with the entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 035/2017 (Sections 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sultanpur) quashed in terms of the compromise; Office/Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned Court forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 02.07.2018 and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 035/2017 (Sections 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sultanpur) ought to be quashed on the basis of the compromise verified by the trial court.

Court's answer

The compromise between the parties was duly verified by the court concerned (Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 29, Sultanpur, report dated 29.01.2024); the parties were present, admitted that they entered into the agreement voluntarily, and their signatures were verified by their respective counsels.

Ratio / Principle

The learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute that the compromise had been entered into between the parties, and opposite party No. 2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

Key takeaways

No purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court; accordingly, the summoning order dated 02.07.2018 along with the entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 035/2017 (Sections 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sultanpur) is quashed in terms of the compromise.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise — Application under Section 482 CrPC to set aside summoning order dated 02.07.2018 and entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 035/2017 under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sultanpur — compromise between the parties verified by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur (report dated 29.01.2024); parties appeared before the verifying court and admitted the agreement was voluntary, signatures verified by their respective counsels — opposite party No. 2 not willing to proceed; learned AGA could not dispute the compromise — Court took note of the observations of the Apex Court in the precedents relied upon (Gian Singh, B.S. Joshi, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, Romgopal, and others) — held, no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court; summoning order dated 02.07.2018 and entire criminal proceeding quashed in terms of the compromise — application allowed.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45632

Court No. - 13

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3431 of 2024

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Azad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Pratap Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed to set aside the summoning order dated 02.07.2018 along with entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 035/2017, under Section 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Sultanpur on the basis of compromise verified by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 29, Sultanpur vide report/ order dated 29.01.2024.

It appears that after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Application u/s 482 No. 10906 of 2023 (Amit Kumar Azad and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

It appears from the order/letter dated 29.01.2024 sent by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 29, Sultanpur to this Court that the court concerned has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court.

For the relief(s) sought, on the basis of compromise, the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi,

2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 .

Learned Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the fact that the compromise has been entered into between the parties and now the opposite party No. 2 does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of trial Court dated 29.01.2024 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the summoning order dated 02.07.2018 along with entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 035/2017, under Section 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationMahila Thana, District- Sultanpur is hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

Accordingly, the present application is allowed in above terms.

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concerned Court forthwith.

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 (Manoj K.)

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