Allowed

Mahmood and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2018A482/19095/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a matrimonial dispute. Finding that the parties had reached a mutual compromise and the prosecution had withdrawn, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial and set aside the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No. 4374 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 201 of 2013, with cognizance order dated 30.11.2013, were set aside.

Mahmood and 3 others Vs State of U.P. and another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19095 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mahmood And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aftab Ahamad,Shashank Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed today, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 15.09.2013, cognizance order dated 30.11.2013 in Case No. 4374 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 201 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that arising out of marital discord between the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2. It is then submitted that the present prosecution had arisen out of misunderstanding and misgiving between the parties and that the opposite party no.2 does realize that there was neither any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any offence was committed by them.

¶9

It has further been stated that the opposite party no.2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants and that the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are living in matrimony.

¶10

In this regard, paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of the present application reads as under:

¶11

"6. That the opposite party no.2 namely Ummehani @ Upmehani has preferred an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi for settle their case on the basis of compromise. The true and certified copy of compromise occurred between the parties is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit.

¶12

8. That on the basis of compromise deed dated 30.04.2018, the opposite party no.2 of this case are not interested to contest the aforesaid case in the court. They are ready to finish the case on the basis of compromise and opposite party no.2 is living with applicant no.1 since last four years.

¶13

9. That if the opposite party no.2 is not interested to contest the proceeding of instant case, the entire criminal proceeding is noting it is only abuses of the process of court and abuses of law and entire criminal proceeding of this case is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶14

In view of the fact that the parties do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them and as the matter is purely a matrimonial dispute, which has been mutually settled between the parties, in view of the compromise entered into between them, 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 :- 17.7.2018 Lbm/-

Mahmood and 3 others v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahmood and 3 others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Mohd. Hasim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asgan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another