HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 13
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 294 of 2019
Applicant :- Yatendra Nag
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Civil Sectt.Lko. Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nishant Shukla,Siddhant Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Singh,Umesh Chandra Srivastava
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. The petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1150 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.0131 of 2015 registered under Section 498A, Section323 IPC, 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Gudamba, Lucknow against as many as 12 accused including the petitioner.
2. Police after investigation of the offence has filed charge-sheet only against the petitioner. After taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the petitioner has been summoned vide order dated 12.04.2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Civil), Lucknow. It appears that the parties have now reconciled their dispute and have entered into compromise whereby they have decided to part company. They have filed an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual consent divorce. In the petition filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, first motion has been concluded and in second motion their statements have been recorded.
3. The compromise entered into between the parties has been placed on record with this petition. The compromise has been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court.
4. The parties are present before this court who have been identified by their respective counsel and they say that they will abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
6. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
7. In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the present petition is allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case No.1150 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.0131 of 2015 registered under Section 498A, Section323 IPC, 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Gudamba, Lucknow are quashed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019
prateek
