High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 10 UK CK 0069

Nitin Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 26 October 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dharam Veer, J
CASE NUMBER
Compounding Application No. 1209 of 2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1021 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 399 words

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Amish Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. A. Rab, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. G.K. Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

2.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet submitted in Crime No. 119/10 under Sections 323, 406 and 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) and also prayed for quashing of proceedings of Case No. 5224/2010, State v. Nitin Gupta, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Ist, Dehradun.

3.

Today both the parties are present in person before the Court. They have also filed a compounding application No. 1209 of 2010 along with which a joint affidavit of the applicant Nitin Gupta and respondent No. 2/complainant Priyanka Gupta has been annexed. In the application, it is stated that the applicant and respondent No. 2 has entered into a compromise and they are living together peacefully as husband and wife and now no grudge is remained pertaining to the same dispute. Now, learned Counsel appearing for both the parties jointly submitted that the instant petition may be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at in between the parties and the impugned charge sheet and the proceedings pending before the court below may be quashed.

4.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and further in the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal and Ors. reported in 2005 SCC 719.

5.

Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Therefore, the compounding application is allowed and impugned charge sheet filed in Crime No. 119/2010, under Sections 323, 406 and 498A IPC and 3/4 of the Act as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 5224/2010, State v. Nitin Gupta, pending in the court of Addl. C.J.M., Ist, Dehadun, are hereby quashed.

6.

The petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is disposed of accordingly.