Allowed

Surendra Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC11 Jan 2019Cr.M.P./542/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a quashing application invoking Section 3(1)(a) CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner for alleged offences under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, observing that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and were living together.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2013 is quashed.

Surendra Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 542 of 2015

¶3

Surendra Sahu, S/o of Sri Ram Nath Sahu, resident of VillageSidhatoli, Arra Gate, P.O. & P.S.- Tatisilwai, District- Ranchi.

¶4

... .. ... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

.. ... ... Opp. Party

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate. Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Additional Public Prosecutor For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate.

¶10

04 / 11.01. 2019. Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶11

The present quashing application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Tatisilway P.S. Case No.32 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No.2066 of 2013 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. snd Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the matter relates to the matrimonial dispute between wife and husband. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2007 and they have been blessed with one male child, namely Daksh Prasad Sahu, presently aged about 10 years.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has also appeared in the Court and she has compromised the case with the petitioner and to that effect a compromize petition has already been brought on record vide Annexure-3 Series.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Gautam Rakesh appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 (wife) have submitted that the matter relates with the matrimonial dispute between the parties and they have amicably settled their dispute and to that effect compromise petition has also been brought on record and, as such, they have prayed to drop the proceeding.

¶15

[ Cr. M. P. No. 542 of 2015 ]

¶16

¶17

Since the matter relates to the matrimonial dispute in which the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they are living together with the child. Under the aforesaid circumstancesd, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Tatisilway P.S. Case No.32 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No.2066 of 2013 is hereby quashed.

¶18

In the result, this quashing application stands allowed, in terms of the compromise.

¶19

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶20

Sandeep/

Surendra Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Sahu v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

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

Smt Durga Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Raghunath Mallah Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Subh Narayan Tewari Alias Kanhaiya Tewari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Razak Alias Mantu Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinku Shah Alias Shahzada Shah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Teko Das Alias Teklal Das Vs the State of Jharkhand