Allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2024A482/2406/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A matrimonial dispute case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act was quashed after the parties settled their differences through a verified compromise; relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held continuing proceedings served no useful purpose as chances of conviction were bleak.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56238

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2406 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chandan Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Srivastava,Om Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard..

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 03.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Lucknow and charge-sheet No.171/2015 dated 26.06.2015 in Case No.2265 of 2016, Crime No.347/2013 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationGosaiganj, District-Lucknow.

¶9

This Court, after considering the averments made in the application and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, vide order dated 14.03.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶10

The order dated 14.03.2024 reads as under:

¶11

"Shri Prem Kumar, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No.2. The same is taken in the record.

¶12

Shri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the proceedings arise out of matrimonial dispute. The parties have amicably resolved their differences and a compromise has been reduced to writing.

¶13

The compromise shall be filed before the learned trial court.

¶14

The learned trial court shall send a report after verification of the compromise.

¶15

Put up this matter on 24.04.2024, as fresh.

¶16

Till further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the impugned summoning order dated 03.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Lucknow and charge-sheet No.171/2015 dated 26.06.2015 in Case No.2265 of 2016, Crime No.347/2013 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4

¶17

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Gosaiganj, DistrictLucknow, shall remain stayed."

¶18

It appears from the order dated 18.04.2024, which is on record, that learned A.C.J.M,. V, Court No. 30, Lucknow 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.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties 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. 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 as also the nature of dispute/crime, 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 arising out of FIR No./Case Crime No. 347 of 2013 , quoted above, are hereby quashed.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Ram Bahal and Others Vs Asstt. Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Others

Ganga Ram Vs Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Utrayla, Balrampur and Others

Ghanshyam and 2 Others Vs Up Zila Adhikari Kunda Distt. Pratapgarh and 6 Others

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohd. Yaqoob Vs D.D.C.Barabanki and Others

Om Prakash and Another Vs Addl. Sub Divisional Officer Mandal Ayodhya Tahsil Sadar Dist. Ayodhya and 15 Others