NARENDRA PACHORI AND 3 OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-292
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 30,2015

Narendra Pachori And 3 Others Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Shri N.S. Chahar, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Gaurav Pundir, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused material available on record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 617 of 2003, Smt. Sanjana Vs. Narendra Pachori and others, as well as cognizance order dated 09.09.2003, passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra summoning the applicants, under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Agra pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 8, Agra.
(2.) It is urged on behalf of the applicants that marriage of applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 27.01.1993 at Agra and after ten years of marriage opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint before the Court of CJM, Agra, against the entire family of applicants on the basis of false allegations. Special CJM, Agra had taken cognizance of the case and after recording statements of complainants and her witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C summoned the applicants under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 I.P.C., and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS-Izzatnagar, District-Agra. During pendency of the complaint case, an application dated 29.06.2015(Annexure No.3) was moved by opposite party no. 2 for withdrawal/dismissal of the above complaint case no. 617 of 2003.
(3.) The application dated 29.06.2015, moved by the opposite party no. 2 was rejected by the court below vide order dated 29.06.2015, on the ground that offences as made out against the applicants are not compoundable and therefore the application for dismissal/withdrawal of complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 cannot be entertained. It has been argued by counsel for the applicants that since parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise and opposite party no. 2 has moved an application before the court below for dismissal of the proceedings, therefore, continuance of instance criminal proceedings would be futile exercise.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.