Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dileep Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar
1
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.7 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8618/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-08-2017
in CRLMA No. 15472/2011 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad)
DILEEP KUMAR & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 31-10-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma, AOR
Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The present petition has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings, which earlier assailed before the High Court by filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but that came to be dismissed by order dated 19.08.2017.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is the joint petition filed by the husband (P1), mother-in-law (P2), brother-in-law (P3) and sister-in-law (P4). They are being summoned on a complaint being filed by Respondent No. 2, who Signature Not Verified happens to be the estranged wife of P1 (husband). On her private Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2022.11.02 13:32:00 IST Reason: complaint, Case No. 269/2010 came to be registered and she got herself examined under Section 200 Crl. P.C. and thereafter, the 2 petitioners were summoned by an order dated 03.02.2011. It has been placed on record that immediately after the summoning order was passed by the trial court, a compromise was entered into between the parties on 23.09.2011, copy of which has been placed on record.
Taking note of the compromise, this Court issued notice to the respondents by an order dated 17.11.2017, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 2 despite service.
On the last date of hearing, this Court directed Respondent No. 1 to send the officer from the concerned Police Station for recording the statement of the complainant (R2). Pursuant to order dated 28.03.2022, an affidavit has been filed by Respondent No. 1, a senior police officer, in which it has been stated that the parties have entered into a compromise and this fact has been stated by the complainant in her application addressed to the Station House Officer dated 14.05.2022, a copy of which has been annexed along with affidavit as Annexure A1. For our satisfaction, we further directed later to Respondent No. 1 to place on record the concerned letter of Respondent No. 2 duly attested/notorised, a copy of which has now been placed on record dated 06.09.2022 along with the interlocutory application. The same is taken on record.
It has been specifically stated by Respondent No. 2 in Paras 2 and 3 that after a complaint (Case No. 269/2010) has been registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the parties have entered into a compromise and she is not interested to pursue her complaint any further.
3
After we have heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of Respondent No. 2 dated 06.09.2022, a copy of which has been placed on record, no purpose is now going to be served in prosecuting the matter any further and may lead to abuse of process to continue with the proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is disposed of. The proceedings initiated pursuant to Complaint Case No. 269/2010 and incidental proceedings stand quashed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (MONIKA DEY) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER