Pallav Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court quashed the charge sheet and impugned cognizance order in a matrimonial offence case. Relying on the proposed parties' affidavit detailing a settlement and mutual decision to live together, the court held no useful purpose would be served by further proceedings. The case was allowed and proceedings set aside citing B.S. Joshi and Nikhil Merch
What did the court decide?
Charge sheet No. 117 of 2016 and entire criminal case No. 2945 of 2017 set aside; application allowed.
What the court decided
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10790 of 2018
Applicant :- Pallav Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Azad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Javed Khan and Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 117 of 2016 dated 20.8.2016 as well as entire criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 2945 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Pallav Kumar) (on the basis of compromise), arising out of Case Crime No. 46 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 50 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut, pending in the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as well as impugned cognizance order dated 7.3.2017.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant and opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case has been lodged against the applicant but that no real criminal offence had actually occurred.
It is thus submitted that the present criminal prosecution had been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With passage of time, the applicant and opposite party no.2 have been able to resolve their differences and they are living together in matrimony.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 50 IPC should be quashed in view of the mutual compromise between the husband and wife.
Whether the objective of law would be served by continuing the prosecution after the parties have settled their differences.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to set aside the cognizance order based on the Supreme Court precedents.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Pallav Kumar
- respondent
State of U.P.
- respondent
Opposite Party No. 2
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/10790/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court