Hari Shankar v. State of Uttarakhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1 / State. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate along with Mr. Subhash Chandra, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Purusottam (complainant). Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1989 of 2006; State Vs. Hari Shankar and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Kashipur, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3) Learned counsel for the parties state that the parties to the matrimony have entered into compromise. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant (respondent No. 2) and Mrs. Geeta (wife of petitioner No. 1 Hari Shankar) (the affected party). In the affidavit filed by Geeta and Mr. Purusottam Saran (complainant) it has been stated that the parties to the matrimony i.e. Mrs. Geeta and Hari Shankar have entered into compromise, and the complainant and his daughter are no more interested to prosecute the petitioners. It has been prayed on behalf of the complainant and his daughter Geeta that the criminal proceedings challenged in this petition may be quashed. The parties to the matrimony are present in person. The complainant is also present in person. They verified the compromise in the presence of their counsel, who identified them. 4) In view of the principle of law laid down in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 Supreme Court 3 Cases 675, in the above circumstances, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. 5) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1989 of 2006; State Vs. Hari Shankar and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Kashipur, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed. (Stay Application No. 361 of 2010 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 28, 2010. H. Negi 4
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.