Allahabad High Court
Roshan Babu Gupta And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 4 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38077
Court No. - 29
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7795 of 2017
Applicant :- Roshan Babu Gupta And Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Shweta Singh
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Shweta Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the material available on record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the chargesheet arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hardoi and also for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 1214 of 2016 (State Vs. Roshan and others), pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Hardoi, alongwith the order dated 07.11.2016 passed thereof.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the matter.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the matter arose due to some matrimonial dispute in between the parties and under some misconception, opposite party no. 2 lodged the First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 29 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hardoi, on 18th of May, 2016. He submits that though, the chargesheet has been filed but subsequently the parties have settled their dispute and applicant no. 1 is living with opposite party no. 2 as husband and wife and also there is a child born from their wedlock and the birth certificate of the child, issued by the authorized official of the State Government, is also annexed alongwith the personal affidavit as PA-1. He added that the personal affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 2/victim on 07.03.2025, wherein, in so many words, she stated on oath that she is residing with her husband/present applicant, since last 5 years and had also given birth of a child on 30th of July, 2023. She also stated in Paragraph 7 of the personal affidavit that she is living happily with applicant no. 1 and they are making all the endeavours to provide best possible for upbringing of their child and repeated the good relations with her husband and enjoying the marital life.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that in fact, the dispute arose due to a trivial matrimonial issue in between the parties and now it has been settled to all the ends and there is no further dispute in between them. He also added that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to go on against the applicants, the matrimonial life of applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 shall ruined and the whole family shall suffer for their no fault. Therefore, submission is that the criminal proceedings ofCase No. 1214 of 2016 (State Vs. Roshan and others),arising out ofCase Crime No. 29 of 2016 may be quashed.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has strongly supported the version of the counsel for the applicants and has submitted that in fact the matter was initiated because of some matrimonial dispute and now the matter is settled between the parties and applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 are living as husband and wife and there is no dispute further in between them. She has also pointed out Paragraph no. 9 of the personal affidavit, wherein it has specifically been stated that opposite party no.2 does not want to prosecute any one (applicants) any further and she has no objection if the instant application is allowed.
7. The State Counsel has opposed the matter on merits but he could not dispute the fact that the matter was pertaining to matrimonial dispute and the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of records, it is apparent that the dispute arose in between the parties with respect to some matrimonial disputes and subsequently that has amicably been settled. This Court finds that the birth certificate of the child, born out of the wedlock of applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, is also appended alongwith the personal affidavit of opposite party no. 2 as PA-1 and in so many words, it is stated by opposite party no. 2 that she is living with applicant no. 1 as wife in her matrimonial house, since last 5 years and she has also given birth of a child.
9. This Court is also not unmindful to the judgmentsof the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008) 9 SCC 677; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and finds that the instant matter is squarely covered with the ratio of aforesaid judgments, as such, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. Consequently, the criminal proceedingsof Case No. 1214 of 2016 (State Vs. Roshan and others), arising outCase Crime No. 29 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hardoi, are hereby quashed.
11. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 4.7.2025
kkv/
