Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2572 (ALL)

Pankaj Kashyap v. State of U. P.

2016-07-26

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2016
JUDGMENT Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Rana, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and also perused the material placed on record. On 20.7.2016 the following order was passed: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Rana, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and also perused the material placed on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the husband of the opposite party no.2. The FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 in respect of the alleged ill-treatment meted to her on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry against her husband, the applicant, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The investigation was conducted and thereafter the charge sheet was submitted against them. The father-in-law and mother-in-law had challenged the proceeding before this Court by filing petition being Criminal Misc. Application (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.20816 of 2015 and another Bench of this Court by order dated 23.7.2015 granted indulgence staying the aforesaid proceeding against them. The opposite party no.2 has also filed a case under Sections 18,19,20 & 21 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband, the applicant, father-in-law and mother-in-law which was challenged before this Court by way of filing Matters Under Article 227 No.168 of 2016. This Court had allowed the petition quashing the proceeding against them and it was observed that it would be appropriate to the parties to move a compromise application to withdraw the case pending before the court concerned. Pursuant to which the opposite party no.2 moved an application. It is further submitted that since the matrimonial dispute was settled amicably and both the parties are living together as husband and wife, therefore, compromise application was moved before the court below. By order dated 17.3.2016 the court below has passed the order that since the proceeding has been stayed against the father-in-law and mother-in-law by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Application (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.20816 of 2015 and the matter is subjudice before this Court hence no final order can be passed. In such circumstances, the applicant has again approached this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding. Application (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.20816 of 2015 and the matter is subjudice before this Court hence no final order can be passed. In such circumstances, the applicant has again approached this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding. In this regard Sri Vikas Rana, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed an affidavit and has submitted that the opposite party no.2 has no objection in case the proceeding is quashed against her husband, the applicant, father-in-law and mother-in-law as the parties are living together happily as husband and wife along with children. In view of the above conspectus, put up this case on 26.7.2016, as unlisted along with the record of Criminal Misc. Application (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.20816 of 2015." Pursuant to the order dated 20.7.2016 the record of the Criminal Misc. Application (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.20816 of 2015 is before this Court. Since the opposite party no.2 has entered into amicable settlement with the applicant and his family members and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has stated that he has no objection in case the criminal proceeding against the applicant be quashed, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi & another Versus State of Haryana 2003 (46) A.C.C.779 S.C., no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal prosecution alive, as chances of ultimate conviction is bleak. In view of the above conspectus taking into account the special facts of the case entire proceeding against the applicant pursuant to the order dated 17.3.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Bareilly in Case No.516 of 2015 arising out of case crime no.205 of 2014, under Sections 498-A,323,504,506 IPC and Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the application is allowed.