Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

INTEZAR & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Intezar & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 9435 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14602 (29 August 2007)

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

Crl.Misc. Application no. 9435 of 2007

Intezar and others . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applicants.

Versus

State of U.P. and another .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opp.Parties.

----

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of Crl. Case no. 387 of 2007 ( State Vs. Intezar and others ) relating to police station Mandawar district Bijnor pending in the court of A.C.J.M. III, Bijnor.

The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that complainant-O.P. no.2 had filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants and on the basis of the order passed by Magistrate on that application case crime no. 283C-A of 2005 under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and ??, Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the accused applicants. The police after investigation of the case submitted a charge sheet against the applicants.

It appears that the parties filed a compromise before the Magistrate, but the learned Magistrate rejected that compromise application on the ground that offences under section 498-A,I.P.C. and ??, Dowry Prohibition Act were not compoundable . Then the applicants filed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. in this Court.

In this court also the complainant-O.P. no.2 filed an affidavit along with the application that the matter has been compromised and she did not want any action to be taken against the applicants. On that application the Court had passed an order on 30.4.3007 directing the parties to appear in the court of the A.C.J.M. concerned and file compromise along with their affidavits. It was further directed that the A.C.J.M. concerned shall record the statement of the parties and thereafter compromise and the statements of the parties shall be sent to this Court.

The applicant no.1 and O.P. no.2 appeared before the learned Magistrate on 22.5.2007 and filed compromise supported with an affidavit of the complainant -O.P. no.2. Thereafter the learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the applicant no.1 and O.P. no.2 and sent the compromise verified by the parties along with the affidavit of the complainant-O.P. no. 2 and statements of applicant no.1 and O.P. no.2 recorded by him in which they have stated that both the parties have come to terms and filed compromise. The O.P. 2 stated that she did not want to proceed further with the case and the proceedings be dropped.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. None has appeared for O.P. no.2.

It is true that the offences under section 498-A, I.P.C. and ??, Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable but in view of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another' reported in 2003 (46) ACC 779 when husband and wife have come to terms it is in the interest of the society that they should be permitted to compound the case so that they may be able to lead happy married life.

The charges in the present case are also similar to that of the aforesaid case. Both, the husband and wife have settled their disputes amicably and now they want to reside together, so in case permission to compound the offences is refused on technical ground that the offences under sections 498-A, I.P.C. and 3,4, Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable, it will be against the interest of the complainant who had lodged the report . Thus, in view of the above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court I am of the view that permission should be granted to the parties to compound the offences under sections 498-A I.P.C. and ??, Dowry Prohibition Act also.

Therefore, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and since permission is being granted by the Court to the parties to compound the offences under sections 498-A I.P.C. and ??, Dowry Prohibition Act, the entire dispute stands settled between the parties in view of the compromise filed by them. So the proceedings of the Crl. Case no. 387 of 2005, State Vs. Intezar and others, under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and ??, Dowry Prohibition Act , relating to police station Mandawar district Bijnor pending in the court of the A.C.J.M. III, Birnor are hereby quashed.

Dated:29.8.2007

RPP.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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