Ashish Agrahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56966

Court No. - 13

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6920 of 2024

Applicant :- Ashish Agrahari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Divyanshu Singh,Prashant Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Divya Tripathi,Garima Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief(s):-

¶8

"Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.37959/2024 (State Versus Divyanshu Agrahari and others), arising out of crime no. 65/2024 under section 376, 392, 504 IPC, relating to Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow, including summoning order dated 12.04.2024 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom) Lucknow in Criminal Case No.37959/2024 (State Versus Divyanshu Agrahari and others) as well as charge sheet no.01/2024 dated 03.04.2024 filed by investigating officer in the aforesaid case crime number, on the basis of compromise executed between the parties, contained as Annexure No. 1&2 to this application."

¶9

Considering the facts of the case, the matter was sent for verification of the terms of the deed of compromise vide order dated 06.08.2024, however, on account of some defects in the deed of compromise, the same could not be verified and therefore, a proper deed of compromise was filed along with the supplementary affidavit, and thereafter, this Court, vide order dated 14.08.2024 referred the matter to the Senior Registrar of this Court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. The facts which were considered are as under:

¶10

i. The applicant and the victim, aged about 21 years at the time of incident, were known to each other and having relationship and the applicant promised the victim to solemnize the marriage however, on account of some dispute, the applicant declined to solemnize the marriage with the victim.

¶11

ii. The dispute, as per the statement of the victim made before the Investigating Officer as also before the Court

¶12

concerned in terms of Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., respectively, arose on account of demand of dowry including demand of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the side of the applicant.

¶13

iii. Before lodging the FIR, the applicant and the victim were having physical relationship as per the statement of the victim.

¶14

iv. The marriage between the applicant and the victim was solemnized on 05.05.2024 at Arya Samaj Sector-Q, Aliganj, Lucknow.

¶15

v. This marriage is also registered under U.P. Registration of Marriage Rules, 2017, as appears from Annexure No. 8 to the present application.

¶16

In compliance of order of this Court dated 14.08.2024, the Senior Registrar of this Court has submitted his report dated 20.08.2024 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.

¶17

In the aforesaid background of the case, the learned counsel for the parties stated that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of victim/informant and the applicant would be ruined.

¶18

Reliance has also been placed on the judgment(s) of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another (2021) 7 SCC; and Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2110 .

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants has also 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

¶20

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 .

¶21

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts including that the opposite party no. 2, in view of marriage solemnized, does not want to proceed with the proceedings in issue.

¶22

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 and also that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then in that eventuality matrimonial life of victim/informant and the applicant would be ruined and further, that in the given facts of the case chances of conviction are extremely bleak, 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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶25

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

Ashish Agrahari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Agrahari v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shashi Nath Dubay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Sunil Gautam and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Sonu Alias Juned and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Apoorva Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Riyaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Manjul Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another