Allowed

Brahma Prakash Dubey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024A482/7939/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a charge sheet in a matrimonial dispute was allowed. The Allahabad High Court observed that chances of conviction were bleak following a verified compromise between parties, determining that continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The Charge Sheet dated 01.12.2021 in Case Crime No. 257/2021 is quashed, and all proceedings indicated therein are extinguished.

Brahma Prakash Dubey and 2 Others vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61428

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7939 of 2024 Applicant :- Brahma Prakash Dubey And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Mrs. Priyanka Tripathi, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶6

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.

¶7

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

¶8

"Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

¶9

I. It is most respectfully that this Hon'ble court may kindly be Quash the Charge Sheet dated: 01.12.2021, Case crime no: 257/2021 U/S 498 A, 323, 506 and 3/4 DP Act, P.S- Chinhat, District: Lucknow East (Commissionerat Lucknow ) contented as a Annexure no. 1 to this petition"

¶10

It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7000 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 08.08.2024 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 21.08.2024 (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 which is matrimonial in nature 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

¶13

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 Crime No. 257/2021 (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 :- 6.9.2024 Jyoti/-

¶16

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

Brahma Prakash Dubey 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?

Brahma Prakash Dubey 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arun Srivastava and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Raghuvansh Mani Pandey @ Dabbu Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Avnish Nath Tripathi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Lavlesh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Vipin Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suraj @ Surya Prakash Pal and Another vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Lko. and Another