Pradeep Raj Jain @ Rishi Jain and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7261 of 2024

¶3

Pradeep Raj Jain @ Rishi Jain And Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another

¶7

n noter	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Brij Bhushan Singh, Pranjal Apurva, Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Shubham Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Himanshu Pathak, Yash Pal

¶8

Court No. - 14

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Mr. Brij Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Angad Vaishnav, learned AGA and Mr. Himanshu Pathak, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶11

The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶12

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash Chargesheet dated 28/02/2015 vide case crime number 08/2013 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. & Sec 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 at PS- Mahila Thana, Nawabganj, District-Barabanki and the order of cognizance and summoning order dated 27/06/2015 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶13

This Hon'ble Court further discharge the Petitioners from all the charges framed against him."

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the marriage of the applicant no.1 was solemnized with the daughter of respondent no. 2, and due to matrimonial issues, the FIR of the case in question was lodged by the father of the respondent no.1. The sole genesis of prosecution in question is matrimonial dispute, and the charge sheet was submitted by

¶15

A482 No. 7261 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner and thereafter, a divorce petition was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh, which was allowed on 16/5/2019. Thereafter, the daughter of respondent no. 2 entered into the marriage with someone else, and she is enjoying her married life. During the pendency of the present petition, matrimonial issues have already been resolved and the daughter of the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicants also drew the attention of the Court to the affidavit, which was given before the Principal Judge, Family Court, on 14/5/2019 and the same is annexed as Annexure No. 6. Therefore, entire proceedings are liable to be quashed as the matrimonial dispute has been resolved and the complainant's daughter does not want to prosecute the petitioners.

¶19

Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicants and submitted that all these facts can be raised before the court below, but he does not dispute this fact that the prosecution of the case in question was based on the matrimonial dispute and the issues have already been resolved, and the daughter of the complainant had already entered into the marriage with some other person and enjoying her life as well as the complainant and the daughter do not want to prosecute the applicants and they have no objection in case the proceedings are quashed, including the application filed by the daughter of the complainant before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh.

¶20

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as relevant documents, it is evident that the issue has already been resolved between the parties and the daughter of the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners coupled with the undisputed fact that the daughter of complainant entered into the marriage with someone else and she is enjoying her matrimonial life, therefore, this court is of the view that trial of the case in question would be futile one.

¶21

Accordingly, proceeding pursuant to Chargesheet dated 28/02/2015 vide Case Crime No. 08 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of

¶22

A482 No. 7261 of 2024

¶23

3

¶24

the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, Nawabganj, District-Barabanki and the order of cognizance and summoning order dated 27/06/2015 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate are hereby quashed

¶25

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed .

¶26

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶27

November 13, 2025

¶28

Raj

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pradeep Raj Jain @ Rishi Jain and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Raj Jain @ Rishi Jain and Others v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajan Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

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

Naveen Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Sushil Mohan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Secondary Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Khelawan Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 2 Others

Sumit Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Lko. and 4 Others