SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(UK) 146

2008 N.C.C. 675
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant
Criminal Misc. Application No. 114 of 2007
JITENDRA SHARMA & Ors. – Applicants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 29.03.2007

Advocates:
For the Applicants :Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate
For the Respdt. No. 2 :Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate

Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 482 and I.P.C., 1860, Sec. 406 — Proceedings for offence punishable under Section 406, I.P.C. — Quashing of, sought on ground of compromise having been arrived at between the parties and articles having been exchanged by them — Offence under Section 406, I.P.C. being compoundable with permission of the Court — Proceedings pending in court below quashed in view of circumstances in the court. (Paras 3 to 6)

        n.M izfd;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk&482 o Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk&408 & vkbZ-ih-lh- dh /kkjk&406 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gsrq izfd;k & dk lekIr fd;k tkuk & dh ekax bl vk/kkj ij dh xbZ fd i{kksa ds chp le>kSrk o lkeku dk vknku iznku gks x;k gS & vkbZ-ih-lh-] /kkjk&406 ds vUrxZr vijk/k] U;k;ky; dh vkKk ls daikmaMscy gS & fuEu vnkyr esa yafcr izfd;k dks] ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq,] lekIr dj fn;k x;kA ¼izLrj 3 ls 6½

JUDGMENT

Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the charge sheet filed against them in connection with crime No. 09 of 2007 (criminal case No. 488 of 2007), State Vs. Jitendra Sharma and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C., Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee.

3. Annexure-6 to the petition shows that the parties have entered into compromise and the matter has been settled between them outside the court.

4. From the perusal of papers on record, it is clear that the first information report was lodged against the petitioners even before the marriage took place between Jitendra Sharma (petitioner No. 1) and Sheetal (daughter of respondent No. 2 Amreek Singh). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no entrustment of property can be said to have been made as in terms of compromise the parties have already returned back the articles to each other.

5. Keeping in view the fact that the offence punishable under Section 406 is compoundable with the permission of the Court and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, as above, and also considering the compromise (Annexure-6 to the petition) filed by the parties, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.

6. The Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is allowed. Proceedings in criminal case No. 488 of 2007; State Vs. Jitendra Sharma and others, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top