Allowed

Amit Gaur and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024A482/11389/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of a charge sheet and proceedings for offences including dowry harassment. The parties settled the dispute by compromise, verified by the court below. Following Supreme Court precedent, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the charge sheet and entire proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet dated 17.10.2022 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 35643 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 805 of 2022 were quashed.

Amit Gaur and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83588

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11389 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Gaur And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shaiphali Nag,Priyanka Nag Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 17.10.2022 as well entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 35643 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 805 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.. Act, P.S. Kotwali City, District Hardoi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that in pursuance of the earlier order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Application u/s 482 No. 8540 of 2024, the matter was sent before the court below for verification of the compromise deed.

¶9

It is evident from the record that the factum of the compromise has been verified by the court below vide his report dated 09.10.2024. The compromise deed is appended as Annexure 5 to the application, which goes to show that respondent no. 2 does not want to prosecute the applicants.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. fairly concedes that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the court below.

¶11

Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena of decisions, viz., Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333 , B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC

¶12

675 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further and the matter has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter any further.

¶14

For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed.

¶15

Charge sheet dated 17.10.2022 as well entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 35643 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 805 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.. Act, P.S. Kotwali City, District Hardoi are hereby quashed.

¶16

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned, forthwith.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 VKS

¶18

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

Amit Gaur and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Gaur and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandeep Sharma @ Sandeep Kumar Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Dheeraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy /Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kallu @ Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko.

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Iktidar Ahmad Ansari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Mo. Siraj and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another