Allowed

Ankit Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2024/3742/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute. The applicant and wife settled the dispute via divorce suit, paying a sum under the compromise.后腿確認了協議的自願性和真誠性。法院裁定繼續訴訟無意義，並予以撤銷。

What did the court decide?

The summons order dated 16-02-2023, charge sheet dated 11-11-2022, and entire criminal proceedings were quashed.

Ankit Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56243

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3742 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ankit Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arpit Gupta

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

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

¶8

Instant application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶9

"to quash the impugned summoning order dated 16-02-2023, as well as charge sheet dated 11-11-2022 and entire criminal proceeding of Case no. 20799/2023 arising out Crime no. 0699/2021, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 377 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow State of U.P. versus Ankit Gupta and others in the interest of justice."

¶10

It is stated that the opposite party no. 2, the wife of the applicant no. 1, lodged the FIR making allegations to attract the offense under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act and in regard to her husband/applicant no. 1, she also levelled allegations to attract the offense under Section 377 IPC and during the pendency of the criminal proceedings before the trial Court, the matrimonial dispute was settled and in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties, the suit under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "Act of 1955") was instituted and an amount to the tune of Rs. 1,70,000/- has already been paid as appear from para 7 of the deed of compromise (Annexure No. 5).

¶11

Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 15.07.2024 referred the matter to the Senior Registrar of this Court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶12

In compliance of order of this Court dated 15.07.2024, the Senior Registrar of this Court has submitted his report dated 22.07.2024 regarding verification of compromise, which is on record, 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.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, 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 .

¶14

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.

¶15

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the report of Senior Registrar of this Court as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above and the nature of dispute/crime which essentially appears to be a matrimonial dispute, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the same are hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

¶16

Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶18

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

Ankit Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rais Alam and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ram Suresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sheikh Mohammad Shariq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Aftab Alias Md. Aftab and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Ranjeet @ Ghaseete Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Chandan Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another