Allowed

Rajeev Ranjan Alias Happu And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2016Cr.M.P./1080/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act following a joint compromise and settlement between the petitioners and the respondent wife, noting they resumed living together.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No. 340 of 2013 including the order dated 19.12.2013 and pending I.As.

Rajeev Ranjan Alias Happu And Ors. Vs The State Of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 1080 of 2016

¶3

Rajeev Ranjan @ Happu 2. Shaswat Sheo 3. Hanisha Sheo @ Honey 4. Neera Sinha 5. Ambrish Prasad Sinha

¶4

Saurabh Suman .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Divya Suman 3. Dhirendra Prasad … Opposite Parties ---

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶6

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate

¶7

Order No. 06 Dated 15th September 2016

¶8

Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3.

¶9

In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No. 340 of 2013 including the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323, 406, 506, 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶10

The petitioners, are husband as well as in-laws of the informant, against whom allegations had been made that they had meted inhuman treatment to the opposite party No. 2 after her marriage at her matrimonial home at Tilaiya and Pune.

¶11

It has been submitted that there has been an array of cases between the petitioner No. 6 who is husband of the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 being Domestic Violence Case No. 12 of 2014 preferred by the opposite party No. 2, M.T.S. No. 138 of 2015 preferred by petitioner No. 6 and Criminal Revision No. 7750 of 2014 preferred by petitioner No. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequently during pendency of this application, the dispute between the petitioner No. 6 and the opposite party No. 2 has been resolved which has resulted into not wanting to proceed further in the criminal cases instituted by her. Learned counsel for the petitioners has

¶12

¶13

submitted that the petitioner No. 6 and the opposite party No. 2 are residing together since March, 2016 at Ranchi. Learned counsel while referring to I.A. No. 6137 of 2016 which has been filed by way of joint compromise submits that the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶14

Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that the opposite party No. 2 does not have any objection if the entire criminal proceeding of this case is quashed and set aside.

¶15

It appears that I.A. No. 6137 of 2016 has been filed by way of joint compromise petition, in which it has been stated that the parties have settled the disputes and in view of such settlement the petitioner No. 6 as well as the opposite party No. 2 are residing together in Ranchi as husband wife and they do not have any grievance against each other, which has been confirmed by the learned counsel for the parties. It further appears that it has been agreed upon between both the sides that after Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No. 340 of 2013 is quashed, steps shall be taken to withdraw all the cases instituted against each other.

¶16

Since the matter seems to have been settled, as mentioned in I.A. No. 6137 of 2016, the continuation of the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioners would be an act in futility. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No. 340 of 2013 including the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323, 406, 506, 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶17

Pending I.As. also stand disposed of.

¶18

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶19

Rajeev Ranjan Alias Happu And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Ranjan Alias Happu And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susen Rout And Anr. Vs The State Of Jhakrhand

Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Shashi Mahato and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Mahruddin Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kishori Sah And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dhaneshwar Parmanik And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand