Allowed

Smt. Ranjana Srivastava and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2018A482/41389/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed summoning order in criminal complaint citing Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC and D.P. Act pending before Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, based on settlement and absence of objection from opposite party.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1444 of 2012 and impugned order dated 25.10.2012 summoning applicants.

Smt. Ranjana Srivastava and Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41389 of 2012

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Ranjana Srivastava And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.C. Srivastava,R.P.L. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This petition was filed with the prayer to quash the further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1444 of 2012 (Smt. Amita Srivastava Vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar and impugned order dated 25.10.2012 summoning the applicants and further prayed to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

It is submission of the learned counsel that parties have agreed to a compromise and matter has been settled. An Application U/S 482 No. 7562 of 2018 was also filed by the husband of opposite party no. 2 wherein Court has allowed the petition on the basis of compromise entered between the parties and proceeding against the husband of opposite party no. 2 has already been quashed by order dated 14.3.2018.

¶8

It is next contended by the learned counsel that the applicant no. 1, 2 and 3 are sister-in-law (Nanad) of opposite party no. 2 whereas applicant no. 4 is mother-in-law (since dead) of opposite party no. 2.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has not objected the above referred facts and submitted that petition be allowed and impugned order be quashed.

¶10

An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today in Court, which is taken on record and it is specifically mentioned in the affidavit that opposite party no. 2 is having no objection, if the prayer sought by the applicants in the present petition is allowed by this Court.

¶11

In view of the above, the petition is allowed.

¶12

The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1444 of 2012 (Smt. Amita Srivastava Vs. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar and impugned order dated 25.10.2012 summoning the applicants, are hereby quashed.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.4.2018 Ranjeet Sahu

Smt. Ranjana Srivastava and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ranjana Srivastava and 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Mohan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayodhya Prasad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Pal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumant Singh @ Suman Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another