Allowed

Anil @ Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2018A482/15367/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought to quash criminal proceedings for abduction. The court noted that the parties, who had married despite initial objections, mutually settled the dispute. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the proceedings were set aside as they were personal and family-based.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the crime were set aside and the application was allowed.

Anil @ Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15367 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Anil @ Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Singh Yadav,Anjani Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 24.3.2012 as well as further proceeding of Session Trial No. 148 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 228 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366-A and 506 IPC, Police Station Duddhi, District Sonbhadra (State Vs. Anil alias Raj Kumar), pending in the Court of Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Sonbhadra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though relevant time owing to some misunderstanding and misgiving between the parties, the FIR had been lodged against the applicant by the opposite party no.3 alleging abduction of his daughter.

¶9

However, it is on record that the opposite party no.2 namely Parwati is a major, her age having been found to be 24 years. Also, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had falsified the prosecution case.

¶10

He further submits, at present, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 does not wish to press charge against the applicants.

¶11

Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Paragraph nos. 2 to 6 of the said personal affidavit reads as under:

¶13

"2. That the applicant has filed the instant Criminal Misc. application no. 15367 of 2018 (Anil @ Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), under Section 482 of Cr.P.c. before this Hon'ble Court for quashing the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 148 of 2012,

¶14

arising out of charge sheet dated 24.3.2012 submitted in case crime no. 228 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366A, and 506 IPC, Police Station Duddhi, District Sonbhadra (State Vs. Anil @ Raj Kumar), pending in the court of Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Sonbhadra.

¶15

3. that it is submitted that the opposite party no.2 has been solemnized marriage with Anil @ Rajkumar without the consent of deponent namely Bal Govind, so due to misunderstanding the deponent has been lodged the FIR against the applicant in case crime no. 228 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366A and 506 IPC, Police Station Duddhi, District Sonbhadra on 12.3.2012 at about 18:30 O'clock and investigation officer has been done investigation and filed charge sheet on 24.3.2012, thereafter the learned court below taken cognizance in this case, which is pending before the learned trial court. However, the daughter of deponent namely Smt. Parvati and applicant Anil @ Rajkumar has been solemnized their marriage and both are living as husband and wife and they are living with happily marital life. Due to this, both of them a boy namely Ansraj has been born on 20.3.2015 and both the couple are very happy and living as their own sweet will, so now the deponent is agree with the decision of his daughter namely Smt. Parwati regarding her marriage and the deponent/Bal Govind could not want to prosecution of this matter.

¶16

4. That the deponent has no objection regarding the marriage of applicant and opposite party no.2.

¶17

5. That it is submitted that the daughter of deponent namely Smt. Parwati is major and attained the age of 24 years presently.

¶18

6. That the deponent and the applicant has also resolved their marriage and both the parties will withdraw the litigation pending against each others and both the parties will also not proceed further against each others. "

¶19

In view of the fact that the husband and wife do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely of personal nature and family dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶20

Thus, in view of the well settled principles 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 Judgment of the Apex Court reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another ), the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶21

The present application is accordingly allowed .

¶22

Order Date :- 13.7.2018 Mini

Anil @ Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil @ Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Gaurav Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maqsood Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Kumar Singh and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Shahid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pallav Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ankit Gupta and Another Vs State of Up and 2 Others