# Dushyant Thakor and others v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 938
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-08-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 2259 of 2007
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dushyant-thakor-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41194
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri.Shishir Prakash
Sri. Navin sinha
Mrs. Tulika Prakash
Sri. Vipin Sinha
AGA

Code of Criminal Procedure Code Section
482-quashing of criminal proceedingoffence under 498 A, 323, 504, 506 IPCboth parties on the basis of compromise
decided
to
live
separately-the
wife
appeared and accepted to receive Rs.7
Lacs in furtherance of compromise-fate
of pending criminal proceeding predecided-held-continuance
of
such
proceeding would amount to abuse of
process-hence quashed.

Held: Para 6

In
such
circumstances
the
fate
of
proceedings pending in the Court of the
learned C.J.M. Concerned is pre decided
i.e. the acquittal of the accused because
the
witness
shall
not
support
the
prosecution
story
on
account
of
compromise. It shall be abuse cf the
process of the court if the proceedings
are not quashed. In view of the decision
of Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and
others Vs. State of Haryana and another
AIR 2003 SC 1386, in such matrimonial
case if the parties have entered into a
compromise the proceedings may be
quashed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC 1386

## Text

938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. is that property
should be restored to the original owner
after necessity to retain it ceases.

8. In view of decisions of the Apex
Court, I quash the impugned orders dated
16.9.2006 and 10.1.2007 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate and the Session Judge
respectively
and
direct
the
courts
concerned
to
release
Chassis
No.
426021AUZ200824.
Engine
no.
50A62380439 vide temporary registration
no. JH-O5 C-49977 in favour of the
applicants either Adesh Kumar or Tata
Motors forthwith within a period of 15
days from the date a certified copy of this
order is produced before him.

9. With the aforesaid direction, the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
finally disposed of.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2259 of
2007

Dushyant Thakor and others ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri. Vinay Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri.Shishir Prakash
Sri. Navin sinha
Mrs. Tulika Prakash
Sri. Vipin Sinha
AGA

Code of Criminal Procedure Code Section
482-quashing of criminal proceedingoffence under 498 A, 323, 504, 506 IPCboth parties on the basis of compromise
decided
to
live
separately-the
wife
appeared and accepted to receive Rs.7
Lacs in furtherance of compromise-fate
of pending criminal proceeding predecided-held-continuance
of
such
proceeding would amount to abuse of
process-hence quashed.

Held: Para 6

In
such
circumstances
the
fate
of
proceedings pending in the Court of the
learned C.J.M. Concerned is pre decided
i.e. the acquittal of the accused because
the
witness
shall
not
support
the
prosecution
story
on
account
of
compromise. It shall be abuse cf the
process of the court if the proceedings
are not quashed. In view of the decision
of Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and
others Vs. State of Haryana and another
AIR 2003 SC 1386, in such matrimonial
case if the parties have entered into a
compromise the proceedings may be
quashed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC 1386

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants Dushyant Thakor, Smt. Kusum
Thakor, Vaishaii Mittar and Mandir
Mittar with a prayer to quash the
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 18236
of 2006 under Sections 498A, 323, 504,
506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act
pending in the court of learned C.J.M.,
Allahabad.

2. The facts in brief of this case are
that the FIR of this case has been lodged
by Neeraj Chug against the applicants at
P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad in
3 All] Dushyant Thakor and others V. State of U.P. and another
939
case Crime No. 231 of 2006 on
11.09.2006 at 3.10 p.m. alleging therein
that
first
informant
has
performed
marriage of his sister Vaishali with
applicant NO.1 Dushyant Thakor on
23.04.2003, thereafter the demand of
dowry was raised. To fulfill the demand
of dowry the sister of the first informant
was subjected to cruelty. The matter was
investigated by the I.O. who submitted the
charge sheet on 27.11.2006 in the court of
learned C.J.M. Allahabad who took the
cognizance and summoned the applicants
to
face
the
trial
on
21.12.2006.
Subsequently, the matter was settled
between the parties, they entered into a
compromise and both the husband and
wife decided, to live separately. On the
basis of the compromise the present
application has been filed to quash the
proceedings pending in the court of
learned C.J.M., Allahabad vide Criminal
Case No. 18236 of 2006 arising out of
charge sheet submitted by the I.O. in case
Crime No. 231 of 2006 under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Civil
Lines, District Allahabad.

3. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned
counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A.
for the State of U.P. and Sri Vipin Sinha,
learned counsel for·O.P.No.2.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that in the present case
Smt. Nidhi Thakor the sister of O.P. No.2
has entered into a compromise with her
husband Dushyant Thakor, the applicant
No.1 and they have decided to live
separately. In terms of the compromise a
maintenance case No. 501 of 2006 under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by Smt. Nidhi
Thakor has been decided. In terms of the
compromise a draft of Rs. 7 Lacs having
No. 489844 issued by Punjab National
Bank has been handed over to Smt. Nidhi
Thakor by applicant No. 1 Dushyant
Thakor. Smt. Nidhi Thakor has also
appeared before this Court and she stated
that she does not want to prosecute the
applicants because she has entered into a
compromise. In such circumstances the
proceedings arising out of charge sheet
dated 27.11.2006 under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. pending in the court
of learned C.J.M., Allahabad shall not
serve any purpose because the witnesses
shall not support the prosecution story,
the result of the proceedings shall be the
acquittal of the applicants. In such
circumstances to meet the ends of justice,
the proceedings pending against the
applicants may be quashed.

5. In reply of the above contention,
it is submitted by learned counsel for O.P.
No. 2 that both the parties have entered
into a compromise and they have decided
to live separately and in terms of the
compromise a draft of Rs. 7 Lacs has
been given to Smt. Nidhi Thakor the wife
of applicant No. 1. Smt. Nidhi Thakor and
her brother O.P. No. 2 Neeraj Chug do
not want to proceed further against the
applicants in the present case and they are
having no objection in quashing the
proceedings of this case pending against
the applicants. In the present case the
applicant No. 1 Dushyant Thakor and her
wife Smt. Nidhi Thakor appeared before
this Court. Smt. Nidhi Thakor orally
stated before the Court that she has
entered into a compromise with the
applicants and she has accepted the
cheque of Rs.7 Lacs which has been given
in pursuance of the compromise, she does
not want to proceed further against the
applicants and she is having no objection
in quashing the proceedings.
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007

6. Considering the facts and
circumstances
of
the
case
and
submissions made by learned counsel for
the applicants, learned A.G.A., and from
the perusal of the record it appears that it
is a matrimonial dispute between the
applicant No.1 and his wife Smt. Nidhi
Thakor,
they
have
entered
into
a
compromise
and
decided
to
live
separately to lead their life, according to
their free will and consent. The O.P. No.2
and his sister Smt. Nidhi Thakor do not
want to proceed further against the
applicants and they are having no
objection in quashing the proceedings of
this case against the applicants. In terms
of compromise a draft of Rs.7 Lacs has
been given to Smt. Nidhi Thakor the wife
of applicant No. 1. In such circumstances
the fate of proceedings pending in the
Court of the learned C.J.M. Concerned is
pre decided i.e. the acquittal of the
accused because the witness shall not
support the prosecution story on account
of compromise. It shall be abuse of the
process of the court if the proceedings are
not quashed. In view of the decision of
Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and
others Vs. State of Haryana and
another AIR 2003 SC 1386, in such
matrimonial case if the parties have
entered
into
a
compromise
the
proceedings may be quashed.

7. In view of above discussion the
proceedings of case No.18236 of 2006
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in
the court of learned C.J.M., Allahabad
arising out charge sheet dated 27.11.2006
of Case Crime No. 231 of 2006 P.S. Civil
lines, District Allahabad are hereby
quashed.

Accordingly,
this
application
is
allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19287
of 2007

Ujjwal Singh

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri. Kamlesh Shukla
Sri. Mangala Prasad Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri. Manish Chandra Tiwari
Sri. Sanjay Singh
AGA

High Court Rules-Chapter XVIII Rule 18
(4)(b)-Bail application without disclosing
the date of surrender or arrest-held-not
maintainable-direction
issued
accordingly for strict compliance-Bail
application rejected only on this ground.

Held: Para 6

The date of the applicant's arrest/
surrender in the court concerned has not
been mentioned in the bail application
which is mandatory requirement as
provided
by
the
High
Court
rules,
Allahabad under Chapter XVIII Rule 18
sub rule (4)(b). The period of detention
is also one of the grounds to consider the
bail
of
the
accused,
if
applicant's
arrest/surrender is not mentioned in the
bail application, the bail application shall
not be entertained. It is also one of the
ground to reject the bail application.