Allowed

Smt. Anita Rani and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2018A482/11680/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after hearing a joint affidavit submitted by the applicants and the accused, confirming that the family dispute had been amicably settled and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of entire proceedings in Case No.772 of 2011 (State Vs. Sudhir Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.512 of 1996.

Smt. Anita Rani and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 60

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11680 of 2012

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Anita Rani And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Gupta,Dileep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Kamlesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Utkarsh Birla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

¶6

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of impugned orders dated 17.12.2011 and 26.3.2012 passed by 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No.772 of 2011 (State Vs. Sudhir Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.512 of 1996, under Sections 323, 504, 498A, 506 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that compromise has been entered into between the applicants and the respondent no. 2. A joint affidavit regarding compromise has been filed by applicants and opposite party no. 2 having the signature of counsel of both the parties and the said compromise has also been verified by C.J.M., Meerut on 27.3.2018, which is annexed as Annexure-3 to compromise application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants states that the matter has been compromised and the respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the matter any further as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the present case is finally decided.

¶9

Sri Utkarsh Birla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has not disputed the said fact and submitted that the disputes have been amicably settled between the parties, therefore on the basis of compromise the Hon'ble Court may kindly be quashed the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶10

In view of above, the applicants and respondent no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶11

Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi) Vs. State of Haryana) as well as the judgement of the Apex Court reported in J.T. 2008(() SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another), the proceedings in Case No.772 of 2011 (State Vs. Sudhir Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.512 of 1996, under Sections 323, 504, 498A, 506 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut is hereby quashed.

¶12

The present application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶13

Order Date :- 2.11.2018 Arvind

Smt. Anita Rani and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anita Rani and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mast Charan and Others Vs State

Umesh Chandra Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Chaman Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bheemsen and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kushwaha and Others Vs State of U.P.

Naseema Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another