Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1422 (JHR)

Praveen Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2008-12-08

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
Order Heard the parties. 2. As it appears that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Amita Kumari lodged a first information report before Jagannathpur Police Station against her husband Manoj Kumar, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law (Bhaisur) and Sister-in-law, which was registered as Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 31/2004 under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It also appears that the husband of respondent no. 2 namely Manoj Kumar, filed a matrimonial suit before the Family Court, Haridwar under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage and decree for divorce against his wife Amita KL nari, i.e. present respondent no. 2 herein. 4. The husband Manoj Kumar had also filed an anticipatory bail application before this Court being A.S.A. No. 1240/2004, which was rejected on 4.11.2004 against which he approached the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 431/2005. During the pendency of said S.L.P. before the Supreme Court, Manoj Kumar filed an application for quashing of the F.I.R. also before this Court being Cr. M.P. No. 7831 2005 in which his wife Smt. Amita Kumari was made as Opposite Party No.2. 5. As it further appears that in the meantime, the parties, i.e. the husband Manoj Kumar and the wife Amita Kumari reached to a settlement, which was reduced in writing and in terms of the settlement, mutual divorce were granted and the husband Manoj Kumar paid Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) to his wife as a part of full and final settlement and both the parties agreed that they would seek quashing of the F.I.R. of Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 31/2004, which was registered against .ty1anoj Kumar and his family members. 6. Consequent to the memo of settlement, Cr. M.P. No. 783/2005, which was filed by Manoj Kumar for quashing of the F.I.R., was allowed by order dated 3.7.2008, noticing the aforesaid facts and the entire criminal prosecution against Manoj Kumar in Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 31/2004 was quashed. The record of Cr. M.P. No. 783/2005 has been produced before me. 7. The present writ petition has been filed by Praveen Kumar, who is said to be the brother-in-law (Bhaisur) of the informant Amita Kwnari for quashing of the F.I.R. of that very Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 31/2004 in which he was also made one of the accused. 8. The record of Cr. M.P. No. 783/2005 has been produced before me. 7. The present writ petition has been filed by Praveen Kumar, who is said to be the brother-in-law (Bhaisur) of the informant Amita Kwnari for quashing of the F.I.R. of that very Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 31/2004 in which he was also made one of the accused. 8. As stated by the parties that since the matter has already been amicably settled and as per the terms of settlement, the F.I.R. has already been quashed against the husband Manoj Kumar, the same is also liable to be quashed against this petitioner in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 9. Having gone through the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned Cr. M.P. No. 783/2005 (Manoj Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand & Others), this application is also allowed and the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 31/ 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 516/2004, against this petitioner is hereby quashed.