Court allowed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute where parties had amicably settled the matter.
Quashing of charge-sheet dated 07.10.2015, cognizance order dated 12.10.2015, and entire proceedings of Case No. 2247 of 2015 under Sections 147, 354, 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 26
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13694 of 2016
Applicant :- Jagdev And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri M.K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
When the case was taken up on 25.10.2018, this Court has passed following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri G.P. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.K. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for both the parties submits that both the parties have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their dispute outside the Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file supplementary affidavit annexing compromise deed.
Both the parties i.e. applicants and opposite party no. 2 shall be personally present before the Court on the next date.
List on 16th November, 2018 in the additional cause list, before the appropriate Bench, showing the name of Sri M.K. Singh, Advocate from the side of opposite parties.
The case shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench."
Both the parties are present in the Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Presence of parties have been recorded separately in the order sheet of this case.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 07.10.2015 and cognizance order dated 12.10.2015 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.2247 of 2015 (State Vs. Lalu & others), arising out of Case Crime No.482 of 2014, under Sections 147, 354, 323, 504, 506,
307 IPC, Police Station Vidhanu, District Kanpur, pending in the Court of M.M.-9th Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present matter relates to a matrimonial dispute and it is no injury case. He further submitted that compromise has been entered into between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2. A joint affidavit regarding compromise has been filed on 20.11.2017 in Court with the signature of both the counsel i.e. Sri M.K. Singh and P.K. Singh.
Learned counsel for the applicants states that in heat of passion and on advice of family members and relative, case was registered and now she does not want to pursue the case and dispute amicably settled between parties, hence the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed.
Sri M.K. Singh, learned counsel for the 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 quash the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.
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.
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 Bureau of Investigation and another) as well as Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 ( Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and reported in 2014 Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another ), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
The present application is, accordingly, allowed .
Order Date :- 16.11.2018 Junaid
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Sections 147, 354, 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC may be quashed on account of a mutual compromise entered into between parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi Vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶20
2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi) Vs. State of Haryana · Who else cites this
Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherRelied on¶20
J.T. 2008(() SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another) · Who else cites this
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶20
(2012)10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab) · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶20
2014 Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagdev And 5 Others
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
