Allowed

Amit Kumar Azad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024A482/3431/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a 498-A/IPC and Dowry Act proceeding on the basis of a compromise verified by the trial court. The court quashed the summoning order and entire proceedings in terms of the compromise.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 02.07.2018 and entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 035/2017 quashed in terms of the verified compromise.

Amit Kumar Azad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45632

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3431 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Azad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Pratap Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed to set aside the summoning order dated 02.07.2018 along with entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 035/2017, under Section 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Sultanpur on the basis of compromise verified by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 29, Sultanpur vide report/ order dated 29.01.2024.

¶8

It appears that after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court vide order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Application u/s 482 No. 10906 of 2023 (Amit Kumar Azad and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶9

It appears from the order/letter dated 29.01.2024 sent by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 29, Sultanpur to this Court that the court concerned 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.

¶10

For the relief(s) sought, on the basis of compromise, the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Romgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (1) SCJ 536, 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,

¶11

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 .

¶12

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.

¶13

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order of trial Court dated 29.01.2024 as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, and the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending before the trial court and hence, the summoning order dated 02.07.2018 along with entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 035/2017, under Section 498-A, 323, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationMahila Thana, District- Sultanpur is hereby quashed in terms of the compromise.

¶14

Accordingly, the present application is allowed in above terms.

¶15

Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to concerned Court forthwith.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶17

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

Amit Kumar Azad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Azad and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Jagdish Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Niranjan Gaur @ Niranjan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ankita Verma and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vimal Singh Solanki and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Roshni and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Ravi Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home and Another