Allowed

Upmanyu Barnwal @ Pappu and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC11 Jan 2019CR. MISC./15872/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Patna allowed the petition and quashed complaint case No. 559 of 2006 and the cognizance order under Sections 498A IPC and 323/34 IPC. The court found that a compromise was entered into regarding dowry harassment cases, with the pending payment of Rs. 51,000/- being made after the acquittal in the related trial.

What did the court decide?

Complaint Case No. 559 of 2006 and the order dated 25.09.2006 taking cognizance under Sections 498A IPC and 323/34 IPC are quashed.

Upmanyu Barnwal @ Pappu and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15872 of 2011

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Upmanyu Barnwal @ Pappu S/o Late Krishna Bhuhsan Gupta

¶4

Kanak Barnwal W/o Late Krishna Bhushan Gupta

¶5

Santoshi Barnwal S/o Late Krishna Bhushan Gupta

¶6

All are R/o Moh: Shyampuri Colony, House No. S-26/715, Mirpur Bashi, P.S.- Shivpur, District- Varanasi.

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The State Of Bihar.

¶10

Nisha Barnwal @ Moni Barnwal W/o Upmanyu Barnwal @ Pappu, R/o Shyampuri Colony, House No. S-26/715 Mirapur Bashi, P.S.- Shivpur, District- Varanasi, at present R/o Arvind Prasad, Ward No. 5, Rosera, Mohalla- Prabhu Thakur P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.

¶11

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Altamish with Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh 1, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

Date : 11-01-2019

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶16

A.P.P. for the State.

¶17

Despite learned counsel entering appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, nobody was present when the case was taken up and heard.

¶18

Yesterday the Court had recorded the following order:

¶19

“Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State have assisted the Court. Despite learned counsel entering appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2, nobody was present when the case was taken up and heard.

¶20

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied upon a compromise entered into

¶21

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15872 of 2011 dt.11-01-2019 2/3

¶22

between the parties in Trial No. 3534 of 2006, before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 24.05.2010, in which in lieu of payment of Rs. 1,51,000/-, the parties had agreed to settle all cases, including the present one. The petitioner no. 1 had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- upfront to the opposite party no. 2 then only, but the rest Rs. 51,000/- was subject to the compromise being filed before the Court below in the present case.

¶23

3. On a query of the Court to learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the remaining Rs. 51,000/- has been paid, learned counsel expressed his ignorance. The Court does not appreciate the conduct of the petitioners. If they have filed a case, it is their duty to inform learned counsel as it is within their knowledge whether the remaining Rs. 51,000/- has been paid to the opposite party no. 2 or not. This itself may be a ground for the Court not to interfere.

¶24

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for one last indulgence and submitted that the matter be passed over for the day to enable him to get instructions.

¶25

5. In view thereof, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter is adjourned for the day.”

¶26

Today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶27

that he has taken instructions, according to which, the remaining amount of Rs. 51,000/- was also paid to the opposite party no. 2, after acquittal in Trial No. 3534 of 2006 by the court below at Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 03.06.2010. It was further submitted that perusal of the lower court records in the present case indicates that since then the opposite party no. 2 has also stopped appearing in the present case before the court below which

¶28

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15872 of 2011 dt.11-01-2019 3/3

¶29

indicates that she has received the remaining amount of Rs. 51,000/- also.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid and after going through the compromise petition filed by the parties in the court at Varanasi in which at paragraph no. 6 it has been stated that after filing of compromise petition in the court below the remaining amount of Rs. 51,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party no. 2, meaning thereby that the present case was also part of the compromise, the Court finds that the matter now requires to be finally closed.

¶31

Accordingly, the application is allowed. Complaint Case No. 559 of 2006 as well as the order dated 25.09.2006 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 498A and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code stands quashed.

¶32

The lower court records be returned to the court below forthwith.

¶33

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶34

Anjani/-

¶35

AFR/NAFR U T

Upmanyu Barnwal @ Pappu and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upmanyu Barnwal @ Pappu and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Jha and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Surbala Jha Vs The State Of Bihar

Pashupati Bagchi Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Ranjana Das Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Binod Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Lakshmi Sah and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.