Allowed

Ankit Gupta and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2018A482/20320/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that matrimonial dispute resulting in criminal prosecution under Section 498-A IPC is quashable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where parties have reached a mutual settlement, filed for divorce, and filed an affidavit requesting withdrawal of charges, rendering no useful purpose to continue proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings arising from Case Crime No. 274 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 307, 313 IPC, pending before A.C.J.M.-8, Ghaziabad, are set aside.

Ankit Gupta and Another Vs State of Up and 2 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20320 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Madnesh Prasad Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Madnesh Prasad Singh, 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 applicants 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 06.03.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 16235 of 2018 (State Vs. Ankit Gupta & Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 274 of 2016, under Sections498-A, 323, 504, 307, 313 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-8, Ghaziabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 3. The present criminal case has been lodged against the applicant no. 1 and his mother but that no real criminal offence had actually occurred.

¶9

It is thus submitted that the present criminal prosecution has been lodged by the opposite party no. 3 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 separately.

¶10

He further submits, at present, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charge against the applicants.

¶11

Sri Madnesh Prasad Singh, 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. In fact, in the personal affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2, he has supported the contention advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Paragraph nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the said personal affidavit

¶13

reads as under:

¶14

"6. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit it is submitted that all the disputes and differences between the applicant no.1 (husband) and the opposite party no.3 (wife) had been amicably settled without any undue influence or threat or coercion before the Mediation Centre, Ghaziabad and both the parties have signed the memorandum of settlement/compromise dated 19.03.2018, which has been done before the Mediation Centre, Ghaziabad out of their free will, after understanding the contents of the compromise.

¶15

7. That it is respectfully stated that dispute settled between the parties and it is stated in the settlement/compromise that the applicant no.1 (husband) will pay Rs. 16,50,000/- (sixteen Lacs Fifty Thousand) to the opposite party no. 3 (wife) as permanent alimony and it is also settled between the parties that they will file joint petition for dissolution of marriage and on the first motion the applicant no.1 will pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) through bank draft and rest of the amount Rs. 11,50,000/- is to be paid through bank draft at the time of second motion. It is also settled between the parties that the criminal as well as civil cases pending between them and his family members in pursuance of the strained relationship between them, will be withdrawn before the second motion.

¶16

8. That as per the settlement/compromise before the mediation centre, Ghaziabad the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.3 has already filed a joint petition on 10.04.2018 bearing O.S. 697 of 2018 under Section 13(b) (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the family court, Ghaziabad for dissolution of marriage and opposite party no.3 had already received Rs. 5 lakh through Draft Nos. 559972 of Rs. 1,45,000/-, 206789 of Rs. 1,30,000/- and 559971 of Rs. 2,25,000/- dated 31.03.2018 on the first motion according to the terms of the compromise.

¶17

9. That the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad proceeded on first motion of mutual divorce under section 13 (b)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and being satisfied allowed the first motion and fixed date for second motion.

¶18

10. That in view of the amicable settlement between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.3, the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 have no grievance against the applicants and they have no objection if the Charge Sheet dated 06.03.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 274 of 2016, Under Sections 498A 323, 504, 307, 313 I.P.C., police station Mahila thana, District- Ghaziabad is quashed. This fact has already been mentioned in paragraph 6 (La) of the compromise done between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Ghaziabad on 19.03.2018."

¶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

¶21

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.

¶22

The present application is accordingly allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 13.7.2018 Abhilash

Ankit Gupta and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Gupta and Another v. State of Up 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.

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