Allowed

Mohammad Intjar @ Rustom and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024A482/6542/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application seeks quashing of criminal proceedings instituted against an applicant in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations under section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The victim spouse averred that she lives happily with the applicant and wishes to drop the case.

What did the court decide?

The summons order and charge sheet dated 24.05.2019 and all proceedings of Trial bearing criminal case No.-8055/2019 were quashed.

Mohammad Intjar @ Rustom and 2 Others vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50900

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6542 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Intjar @ Rustom And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Prakash Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party No. 2 and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

"To quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.12.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No-18, Barabanki as well as the charge sheet dated 24.05.2019 and also prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the Trial bearing criminal case No.-8055/2019 pursuant to case crime no. 163/2019 under section 498A, 323, 494 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Jaidpur, District- Barabanki pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No-18, Barabanki (State Vs. Mohd. Intjar and others) and to stay the further proceedings of the case pending in pursuance thereof so far as it relates to the petitioners till the pendency of this petition."

¶10

It is stated that applicant no.1 and opposite party No.2/victim were in affair and the victim, on her own volition, accompanied with applicant no.1 and solemnized the marriage and out of this wedlock there are three child and presently entire family is living happily under one roof.

¶11

It is also submitted that taking note of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required else matrimonial life of applicant no.1 and opposite party No.2/victim would be ruined and development and future prospects of minors would also be affected rather ruined.

¶12

At this stage, on being asked, the opposite party No.2/victim before this Court stated that since marriage she is living happily with the applicant no.1 and she does not want to continue the

¶13

case.

¶14

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 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, 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 , and also the nature of dispute/crime, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as if this Court declines to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the entire family would be shattered and minors' future would be ruined as also that in instant case the 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 the Trial bearing criminal case No.-8055/2019 pursuant to case crime no. 163/2019, quoted above, are hereby quashed .

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶17

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

Mohammad Intjar @ Rustom and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Intjar @ Rustom and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Rajesh Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Shah Alam and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Imran Ahmad and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Shamsher Singh vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow and Another

Sopal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.