Allowed

Rahul Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2018A482/24549/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed to quash FIR and criminal proceedings involving Sections 498A, 323, and 506 IPC for a matrimonial dispute. The court noted a valid compromise affidavit filed by the applicant and the accused, establishing a complete settlement. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court quashed the impugned proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Case No. 4355 of 2016, the FIR, and the charge sheet are quashed and the application is allowed.

Rahul Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 60

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24549 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shambhu Chopra,V.D. Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Compromise affidavit filed today by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

¶6

Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the applicants has already filed compromise application along with affidavit.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned FIR No. 32/2016 registered under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Sector -39, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar and charge sheet no. 72 of 2016 in Case No. 4355 of 2016 (State Vs. Rahul Singh & others) pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar. It is also prayed that entire proceedings of above case may also be stayed.

¶8

Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants states that present criminal proceeding is arising out of matrimonial dispute and now matter has been compromised and the respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the matter any further as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, the present case may be finally decided.

¶10

Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, appearing for opposite party no. 2 has not disputed the said fact. He has also stated clearly in paragraph 4 of compromise affidavit that compromise between applicants and opposite party no. 2 took place with their free will and consent without undue influence, pressure and coercion from any one and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶11

Applicant No. 1 as well as opposite party no. 2 are personally present before the Court who have been identified by their respective counsel. Their presence be noted on the order sheet.

¶12

Thus in view of the well settled principle 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 judgement of the Apex Court reported in J.T. 2008 SC 192 (Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another) as well as Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and reported in 2014 Supreme Today 642 (Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another) , the proceedings in Case No. 4355 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 605 IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act including Charge Sheet No. 72 of 2016, P.S. Mahila Thana, Sector -39, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar are hereby quashed.

¶13

The present application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.11.2018 RCT/-

Rahul Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singh 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

Jagdish Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anita Rani and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bheemsen and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shariq Ahmad Siddiqui and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Heman Vs State of U.P.