Allowed

Smt. Kiran Srivastava and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2018A482/17633/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed summoning order, charge sheet, and criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following a compromise between the husband and wife applicants, citing established precedents on quashing cases settled by parties.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Case No. 5211 of 2017 (summoning order, charge sheet, and entire proceedings) set aside and quashed.

Smt. Kiran Srivastava and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17633 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Kiran Srivastava And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Tapan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikash Chandra Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 07.11.2017, charge sheet dated 26.10.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 5211 of 2017 (State Vs. Saksham & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 85 of 2017, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Meerut, pending in the court of Special C.J.M., Meerut.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 3 and the opposite party no. 2. The present criminal case has been lodged against the applicant no. 3 and his other family members but that no real criminal offence had actually occurred.

¶8

It is thus submitted that the present criminal prosecution has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties, with passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and they are living together as husband and wife. He further submits, at present, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charge against the applicants.

¶9

Sri Vikash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2, she has supported the contention advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

Paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the said counter affidavit reads as under :

¶11

"3. That the said opposite party no. 2 is informant in the said case and now the matter has been settled between the parties on and the opposite party no. 2 does not want to prosecute the said applicants further.

¶12

4. That the said dispute between the parties is absolutely matrimonial and the same is not against the society and being the matrimonial dispute the same has been resolved between the parties.

¶13

5. That as such it is in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to keep this short counter affidavit on record and may kindly allow the said application on the basis of compromise between the parties so for the justice may be done and or pass any further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶14

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, in view of the compromise dated 03.05.2018, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶15

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.

¶16

The present application is accordingly allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 16.7.2018 Abhilash

Smt. Kiran Srivastava and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kiran Srivastava and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahid Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Abhishek @ Golu Thru His Father Pujanram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Jalik and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saeed Hafiz and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another