Allowed

Abhishek Agrawal and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2018A482/36658/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court quashed the case after recording satisfaction of a compromise agreement, handing over settlement drafts to the respondent's representative, and noting the parties' desire to settle the matrimonial dispute amicably.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Case No.214/11 of 2017 under Section 12 DV Act 2005 are quashed; application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; no order as to costs.

Abhishek Agrawal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36658 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Abhishek Agrawal And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Maheshwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit dated 20.11.2018 filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No.214/11 of 2017 (Smt. Ila Agrawal Vs. Abhishek Agrawal and others), under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Moradabad, Police Station Civil Lines, Moradabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court paragraph no.10 of the supplementary affidavit wherein it is averred that as per the terms and conditions of the compromise application dated 30.07.2018, it was settled between the parties that opposite party would withdraw all the criminal cases against the applicants and, thereafter, at the time of judgement of divorce petition, the opposite party no.2 is entitled to collect the bank drafts from the Court. A demand drafts of Rs.2,50,000/being draft no. 055131 payble at Muzaffarnagar dated 4.10.2018 and a demand of Rs.14,000,00/- dated 17.11.2018 payable at Muzaffarnagar of HDFC Bank has been brought on record, a copy of which has been filed as annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶9

The opposite party no.2 is being represented by her brother Aashu Agrawal, who is present before this Court today, who has been duly identified by Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and an endorsement of receipt of aforesaid demand drafts by Sri Aashu Agrawal has been made on the order sheet of this Court. These drafts are being handed over to Aashu Agrawal brother of the opposite party no.2.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 does not dispute the fact that compromise has been entered into between the parties and the opposite party No.2 does not want to pursue the matter any further.

¶11

In view of the fact that opposite party no.2 also does not want to prosecute the case. The matter is purely personal and matrimonial, which has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending.

¶12

The attention of This Court has been drawn to the following judgements of the Apex Court:-

¶13

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675

¶14

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]

¶15

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶16

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶17

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶18

In the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case.

¶20

In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶21

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.11.2018

¶23

Ravi Kant

Abhishek Agrawal and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Agrawal and 7 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Balwant Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sh. Sanjeev Narula Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asrar Ahmad and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ram Chet and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another