Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rajesh Kumar Bishwakarma And Others v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 14794 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21312 (18 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No.   14794   of 2006


1. Rajesh Kumar Bishwakarma. S/o Ram Dular.

2. Ram Dular bishwakarma S/o late Ekram Bishwakarma.

3. Smt. Amravati Devi W/o Ram Dular.

4. Dinesh Kumar S/o of Ram Dular.

5. Suresh Kumar S/o Ram Dular.

6. Smt. Nirmala Devi D/o Ram Dular.

7. Smt. Urmila Devi D/o Ram Dular.

All R/o Buluaghat, P.S. Kotwali,

District Jaunpur. ........ Applicants-Accused.


1. State of U.P.

2. Smt. Mithlesh Bishwakarma, W/o Rajesh Kumar

Bishwakarma, D/o Deena Nath Bishwakarma,

Presently R/o Bundelkhandi, P.S. Kotwali,

District Jaunpur. ....... Complainant Opp.parties.


Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. Rajesh Kumar Bishwakarma is present alongwith his counsel Sri Anurag  Upadhyay. Sri Upadhyay is also present on behalf of applicant Nos. 2 to 6. Opp. Party No.2 complainant Smt. Mithlesh Bishwakarma  is present alongwith her father  Deena Nath  and her counsel Sri D.K. Tripathi.  Sri N.C. Tripathi,  Addl. Government Advocate is present for the State.

2. On a first information report lodged by Opp. Party No.2, complainant with Police Station Kotwali District Jaunpur, the police had registered a case Crime No. 1208 of 2005 under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against all the seven accused-applicants and after investigating filed a charge-sheet  in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur on the basis of which, a criminal Case No. 1699 of 2006 was registered.

3. The parties, latter on, arrived to terms in the present case in various litigations in between them in different  courts, in consequence whereof, the complainant and her husband applicant no.1 Rajesh Kumar filed a written compromise before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur , which is still pending for decision.  Subsequently, the applicant-accused came up here under Section 482 Cr.P.C. , in which they also filed copy of the written compromise, which was filed between the parties in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.

4. Today, the Opp. Party No.2 appeared in this case an on enquiry made with regard to the compromise filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur,  a copy of which is available on the record here,  she admitted the factum of compromise  after going through the contents of the compromise filed here.  Her statement and that of applicant no.1 Rajesh Kumar was recorded by this Court and the Opp. Party No.2 has unequivocally admitted  that these terms of compromise are arrived between them and now she has no complaint against Rajesh Kumar  and the other accused-applicant.  She has also stated that in other cases pending between her and Rajesh Kumar, she has already compromised  and in terms of compromise, she has nothing to say if the present criminal proceedings against the applicants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur are dropped.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.G.A.

6. It is true that both the offences in which the accused-applicants are being prosecuted, are non-compoundable offences  but since the complainant is not now supporting the allegations made in the prosecution case against the applicants-accused, the chances of conviction are zero and in the aforementioned circumstances, it would not be proper  to allow the continuation of the proceedings as it will be a sheer abuse of the  process of Court, therefore, adhering to the proposition of law as propounded in case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another , 2003 S.C.C. (Crl.) 848 , the criminal proceedings pending against the applicants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur  as noted above, are hereby quashed.

7. This application is disposed of accordingly.

Dt:   18.12.2006

 14794 of 2006 n.u.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.