Allowed

Bhanu Pratap and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2024/8269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal trial proceedings involving offences under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. The court held that since the dispute was matrimonial in nature and a compromise was voluntarily entered and verified by the trial court, continuing the proceedings served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The entire trial proceedings of Case No. 16130/2023 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hardoi are hereby quashed.

Bhanu Pratap and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63479

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8269 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Divedi,Arti Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Sri Sandeep Kumar Trivedi, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶8

The present application has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶9

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash /set-aside the entire trial proceeding of the Impugned Charge Sheet dated 11.12.2022 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi in Case No. 16130/2023 arising out in Case Crime No.629/2022, U/S- 498-A, 323 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District-Hardoi in case of State Vs. Bhanu Pratap & Others in the light of said Compromise dated 24.07.2024 made between the parties i.e. opp. party no.2 & petitioners as contained in Annexure No.4 to this Application/Petition."

¶10

Considering the fact that dispute involved in this case is matrimonial in nature and the same has been settled, this Court vide order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7103 of 2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶11

It appears from the order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure No.5) that the trial court 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.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the nature of dispute/crime as also the observations made by 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.

¶13

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 , this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings of Case No. 16130/2023 (Supra) , indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶14

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.9.2024 Jyoti/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhanu Pratap and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Pratap and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Sanjay Kumar Maurya and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Arpit @ Arpit Rajpoot and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Raj Kumari Saroj and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Bhanu Pratap and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another