Allowed

Manish Vats and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2018A482/20162/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a matrimonial dispute. The court noted a compromise agreement with payment of alimony and a subsequent divorce decree, finding no useful purpose in continuing criminal prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Case No.3909 of 2015 and the charge sheet dated 15.9.2015 were set aside.

Manish Vats and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20162 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Vats And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Niraj Kumar Baranwal

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Niraj Kumar Baranwal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 15.9.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.3909 of 2015 (State Vs. Manish Vats and others), arising out of Case Crime No.298 of 2014, under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationBhelupur, District- Varanasi, pending in the court of learned ACJM-3 Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present prosecution has arisen out of matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and opposite party no. 2. It is then submitted that there is no criminal antecedent, misunderstanding and misgiving between the parties. It has been submitted that with the passage of time, the parties have dissolved their dispute, such that marriage between the parties has been dissolved by a decree of the family court. Copy of such decree is also annexed with the present application.

¶9

Sri Niraj Kumar Baranwal, Advocate has also filed personal affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶10

Paragraph 4 to 8 of the affidavit read as under:-

¶11

"4 . That the deponent also categorically confirms the fact that a compromise has been entered between the parties and as such she does not wish to proceed with the case.

¶12

5.That the deponent submits that as per compromise/MOU arrived at between applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 remaining amount of Rs. 200000/- (Two Lacs) out of Rs. 100000/- (Ten Lacs) of permanent alimony is to be given to the opposite party No.2.

¶13

6.That the deponent specifically submits that the dispute was matrimonial in nature.

¶14

7.That the deponent also submits that the proceedings of the case be quashed as the continuation of the same would amount to waste of judicial resources.

¶15

That the deponent affirms the fact that a divorce decree has been passed by a court of competent jurisdiction on 15.11.2017."

¶16

It has further been stated that under the compromise entered into between the parties, Rs.1 lakh had earlier been paid to

¶17

opposite party no. 2. The balance amount of Rs.2 lakh is being paid to her today in Court through demand draft bearing no.'170566' dated 16.5.2018 drawn in favour of Ms. Ekta Singh, opposite party no. 2 who is present in court and she has been identified by counsel for opposite party no. 2. The aforesaid demand draft has been handed over to her in Court today.

¶18

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, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶19

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.

¶20

The present application is accordingly allowed . Order Date :- 23.7.2018 Meenu

Manish Vats and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Vats 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amzad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prince @ Rajnish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Saraswat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anas Quareshi (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Rakesh Kumar Alias Baswan (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another