Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 560 (ALL)

Bhoop Ram @ Bhupendra Kumar v. State of U. P.

2017-02-16

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2017
JUDGMENT Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri K.N.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, and learned A.G.A. for the State. By means of the present application under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing the proceeding pursuant to the summoning order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhitl in Complaint Case No.687 of 2012, Smt. Khilauna Devi Vs. Bhoop Ram and another, under Sections 498-A IPC and under Section 4 Dowry Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sehramau, District Pilibhit. A short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 pursuant to the order dated 9.2.2017 is taken on record. It has been mentioned in the short counter affidavit that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of applicant no.1 and they are now residing together and out of the wedlock one male child was born in 2015 and there is no differences between them. It is further mentioned that the opposite party no.2 is living cheerful marital life and as such the opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants anymore. The opposite party no.2 has no objection in case the criminal proceeding against the applicants is quashed. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012)10 SCC 303 and has submitted that as the opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute the applicants and as such the criminal prosecution against them deserves to be quashed. Since the opposite party no.2 has entered into amicable settlement with the applicants 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 applicants is 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 to give quietus to the dispute entire proceeding against the applicants pursuant to the summoning order dated 10.1.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhitl in Complaint Case No.687 of 2012, Smt. Khilauna Devi Vs. Bhoop Ram and another, under Sections 498-A IPC and under Section 4 Dowry Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sehramau, District Pilibhit is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the application is allowed.