Allowed

Amar Singh @ Amar Rati Ram Nishad Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2018A482/37617/2018

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 Domestic Violence Act following a settlement and compromise between the parties, citing Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in such matters.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Case No. 303/2013 under the Domestic Violence Act are hereby quashed.

Amar Singh @ Amar Rati Ram Nishad Singh Vs State… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37617 of 2018 Applicant :- Amar Singh @ Amar Rati Ram Nishad Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant, is taken on record.

¶4

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 24.10.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur passed in Case No. 303/2013 (Smt. Phool Dulari Vs. Amar Singh and others) under sections 12, 18, 19 & 20 Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Lalauli, District Fatehpur.

¶5

The argument is that the parties have entered into compromise, and the opposite party no. 2 has gone to the house of the applicant on 10.12.2017 decided to live with the applicant in pursuance of the order dated 24.10.2017. A true copy of the original compromise deed dated 20.09.2018 has been annexed as Annexure No. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit. This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid Case are hereby, quashed.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 15.11.2018/Arti

Amar Singh @ Amar Rati Ram Nishad Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh @ Amar Rati Ram Nishad Singh 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

Kapil Manchanda and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hompal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharmendra Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Gautam Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nawab Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.