Disposed

Arun Batta and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2018A482/26636/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused the quashing of prosecution proceedings under IPC 498A and related sections, stating disputes of fact were not triable under Section 482 CrPC. It directed the magistrate to decide on a filed compromise within 60 days under the Rajesh Sharma benchmark and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused; magistrate directed to nod on compromise filed under Rajesh Sharma; coercive action stayed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26636 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Arun Batta And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 80/9 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 406, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station - Mugalpura, District - Moradabad, summoning order dated 20.02.2014, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Mughalpura, District - Moradabad and the order dated 09.09.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 114 of 2014 (Arun Batta and others v. State of U.P. and another).

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the perusal of complaint, no offence is made out against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide and as such, the present proceedings are sheer abuse of the process of the court.

¶8

Perused the complaint. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶9

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that in mediation centre, the matter has been compromised between the applicant no. 3 Tarun Batta and opposite party no. 2 Yashi Tandon to withdraw all the cases. Even so, she is not cooperating and has not appeared before the court.

¶12

Accordingly, learned Magistrate is directed to decide the compromise filed between the parties as per direction of

¶13

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2017 0 AIR (SC) 3869 , within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶14

If opposite party no. 2 - Yashi Tandon does not appear before the Magistrate to verify the compromise, learned Magistrate may take steps against against her in accordance with law.

¶15

Till the disposal of compromise between the parties, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, the instant application is finally disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.8.2018 I. Batabyal

Arun Batta and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Batta 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

State of U.P. Vs Preetam Sharma

State of U.P. Vs Rajveer Singh Acharya

State of U.P. Vs Nsiar

Deepa Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arif and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitesh Bhargav and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.