Smt. Gyan Devi @ Shakuntala v. State of Uttaranchal
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Petition stands disposed of, accordingly
Provisions considered
Judgment
Smt. Gyan Devi @ Shakuntala W/o Sri Attar Singh Attar Singh S/o Nihal Singh 2. 3. Mahendra Singh S/o Attar Singh All R/o Village Annaki, Police Station – Ranipur, District Haridwar …………… Versus
State of Uttaranchal Yashpal Singh S/o Jhandu R/o Village Karaundi Police Station- Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. ………… Applicants Respondents Mr. B. Joshi and Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the report dated 24th May, 2006, submitted by the Chairman, Re-conciliation Committee, Circle Officer, City Haridwar, whereby it has been informed that the parties have entered into compromise finally on 22.05.2006. 2) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, father of wife of applicant No. 3 Mahendra Singh, states compromise has already taken place. Affidavit dated
Operative part
22.5.2006, of Smt. Panki (wife of applicant No. 3) has also been filed before this Court, with aforesaid report of the Re-conciliation Cell. 3) After going through the said affidavit and the report of the Re-conciliation Cell, now this Petition has become infructuous. 4) Interim order dated 29.11.2005 stands automatically vacated. In view of principle of law laid down in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675. the proceedings in criminal case No. 4964 of 2005; State Vs. Mahendra Singh and others, under Section 323, 498-A of I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed. 5) The Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (All pending application in this Petition also stand disposed of.) Dt. 28th September, 2006 H. Negi (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Petition stands disposed of, accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 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.